Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgewood Mall


 * 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   keep. BJ Talk 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Edgewood Mall

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable mall, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions.   — Cliff smith  talk  01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Searching g-news with some local mall names produces around 500-1000 news hits on all dates. This hits two. If it were a major shopping center, it would have much more news coverage. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to keep, now that someone found sources at an alternate web location. The McComb Enterprise-Journal has 500+ hits when searching the mall's name; I think it's enough to pass notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This appears to be a regional mall rather than a tiny strip mall. The article doesn't give the total area of the mall, but the areas given for the anchor stores gives a general idea of the scale of the mall. It claims to be "southwest Mississippi's premier shopping destination". But the mall appears to have allowed its domain name to expire, which is not a good sign. --Eastmain (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is clearly an important enclosed shopping mall serving a large geographical region. I've added some references to the article but the utter lack of coverage from the local newspaper tells me that its archives are not available online. This makes sourcing and expansion a challenge but it's now sourced well enough to keep. - Dravecky (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - Dude, "the utter lack of coverage from the local newspaper tells me that its archives are not available online" - fuzzy logic, dangerous! Could it not also mean that the mall's had no coverage? fr33kman (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply In my experience, even a non-notable strip mall would get some coverage from the local paper when a major retailer opened plus the usual "directory" type listings. Given that the mall verifiably exists, their absence strongly indicates that the local newspaper is not feeding into Google News. Lack of Google News hits is not an indicator of non-noatbility. - Dravecky (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Nor does hits on Google News provide concrete proof of notability, it's just a search engine by any other name. All I'm saying is I found the logic a tad flawed. that's it. The consensus will decide the issues :-) fr33kman (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good news, everybody! It seems that the McComb Enterprise-Journal is online but not, for some reason, feeding into Google News. It'll take a while to add all of these to the article but there's plenty here to support notability:
 * And there's plenty more where that came from, too. - Dravecky (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, update the article and I might change my vote :-) fr33kman (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I invite your review of the updated article. I think you'll now find it reasonably expanded and more than sufficiently well sourced. - Dravecky (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And there's plenty more where that came from, too. - Dravecky (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, update the article and I might change my vote :-) fr33kman (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I invite your review of the updated article. I think you'll now find it reasonably expanded and more than sufficiently well sourced. - Dravecky (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And there's plenty more where that came from, too. - Dravecky (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, update the article and I might change my vote :-) fr33kman (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I invite your review of the updated article. I think you'll now find it reasonably expanded and more than sufficiently well sourced. - Dravecky (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And there's plenty more where that came from, too. - Dravecky (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, update the article and I might change my vote :-) fr33kman (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I invite your review of the updated article. I think you'll now find it reasonably expanded and more than sufficiently well sourced. - Dravecky (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete "'The mall currently has more than 40 interior shops, and a food court with a restaurant located at the mall's main entrance' Taken from Edgewood Mall." Forty shops is not a major shopping mall unless ALL of them are the size of a Sears, for example. This is local news and the lack of references shows it. The only reference I can find that points towards the Mall's passing WP:NN is Jamie Lynn Spears shopping there] ''(and do we really consider celebphotos.wordpress.com to be a reliable source? I think not. fr33kman (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's reliable sourcing for young Miss Spears' shopping trip (I even noted one on the talk page) but that sort of celebrity visit is not encyclopedic nor would it confer notability even if it was on the front page of the USA Today. - Dravecky (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * comment My point exactly! :-) fr33kman (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2008 (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.