Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherryland Center


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete The argument that this fail WP:V is not rebutted by WP:LOCAL. The lone cite provided in the AfD isn't sufficient to overcome worries expressed in the consensus below. Xoloz 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Cherryland Center
A shopping mall of no particular significance. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Was prodded, but the author removed the tag. Indrian 05:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - nn strip mall of modest size. Article indicates that "Cherryland Mall" was quite a lot bigger before the location was redeveloped, but I don't think that cuts it either. My Alt Account 09:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn mallcruft &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  10:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LOCAL. Kappa 12:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment if someone wants to dig up some other sources for the article I'd be inclined to keep. As it stands, I really don't like the lack of sourcing, but the mall seems potentially encyclopaedic.  WilyD 14:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Okay, I don't know how to properly add comments, but I just wanted to speak my mind. I was the author of the Cherryland page. I'm with whoever said that maybe more sources should be dug up. TenPoundHammer 17:47, 12 September 2006
 * Delete, malls are usually not notable and this one is no exception. It's not even of much local interest or importance relative to Traverse City, Michigan...--Isotope23 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Malls are businesses, so WP:CORP applies.  There is no evidence or even assertion of meeting it.  GRBerry 02:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:LOCAL is relevant given history of the place and local importance. :) Dlohcierekim 23:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment local news coverage shows it is a point of reference recognised by people in area. Cheers.[[User_talk:Dlohcierekim| :) Dlohcierekim] 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That article is not even about the mall. If it was really that important, I would expect you to find a reference directly on point.  Of course people are going to recognize the name of the local mall -- I certainly know the name of mine -- but where is the evidence that it has anything beyond local name recognition?  Local club bands have local name recognition too, yet we have a speedy delete category for those. Indrian 23:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but it shows that it is a point of reference for the locals. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 00:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just about anything can be a point of reference for locals. A rundown house on the corner of the street can be a point of reference.  A traffic light that does not work right can be a point of reference.  A block of warehouses can be a point of reference.  I certainly hope you are not suggesting that these things should have articles just because the locals know them and use them to oriente themselves in a given neighborhood.  What if the article had said it was near the Super Wal-Mart?  Does that mean the local Wal-Mart now deserves an entry.  What about the Blockbusters that article talked about that went out of business?  Should they all receive articles because the local paper thought they were important enough to report about?  Does every single business in the world that more than a couple of dozen people patronize deserve an article just because the locals use them and oriente themselves to them?  If you can truly answer yes to all of these questions, then there is no reasoning with you, but if you think some of these things cross the line, then you have not articulated any reason why this mall is special. Indrian 01:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a failure of WP:CORP and fails to provide reliable sources.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.