Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fashion Valley 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 of the debate was Delete. Keep rationales: 1. large size, major city - not a criterion of inclusion per se, 2. precedent - not valid, 3. important shopping centers - valid. Delete rationales: 1. WP:VER - irrelevant, 2. WP:CORP - valid, 3. Malls are a dime a dozen - valid. I find that the delete rationale 2 and 3 opinions have outweighed keep rationale 3 opinions.

My sincere suggestion to those who may be upset by this closure is to research who the parent company operating the mall is - many of these turn out to be notable per WP:CORP, and I even recall at least one having an article here. This is information would be acceptable in condensed for in an article about the CORP-meeting parent, and I would be happy to make it available if/when requested. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Lo and behold, I give you Simon Property Group, the parent company. If anyone wishes to undertake a slight merge, please leave me a note. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fashion Valley Mall
PROD tag removed without justification, so bringing here instead. This is a nonnotable mall whose article serves only as advertising. Delete. User:Angr 10:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:VER Ste4k 11:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Huge mall ("1.6 million square foot") in a major city. Ramseystreet 20:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent. At least 15 mall pages for the Pittsburgh area alone. --DarkAudit 22:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sixteen wrongs don't make a right. User:Angr 22:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * could not agree more. Precedent is valid in English common law. Wikipedia is not run by precedent. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Important shopping centres should be kept, this one seems to be. De-prodding should be questioned though. SM247 My Talk  01:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see how this mall is notable - fails WP:CORP, the most relevent standard I can see. Inner Earth 09:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this isn't Oxford Street, for crying out loud. It is a shopping mall which fails Corp and any other reasonable measure of notability. Cruft. Precendent is no argument; perhaps those malls should be Afd'd as well. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Other malls are coming up for deletion, i've nominated a few in the past week. Where is the precendent ( I've had a look around but I can't see it) for keeping things that fail the closest guideline? Even less notable seem to be the closed malls that for some reason have even got their own project.... Inner Earth 13:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep local landmarks, including this mall. --SPUI (T - C) 05:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say keep. Given the list of available stores, this strikes me as a pretty large and regionally notable shopping center, and I like the idea of keeping those, personally. Perhaps consolidate this (and similar articles) into a parent. Luna Santin 07:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing notable about it, nothing setting it apart from a zillion other malls.  Something being big and occupying a lot of land does not make it worth an article. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 16:30, 5 July 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.