Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Saginaw 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, consensus is that there is sufficient notability established. Davewild (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fort Saginaw Mall

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Well, this is somewhat of an interesting ride... Initially, I wanted to G7 this page as I'm pretty much the only significant contributor to it (the IPs are also me, back when I had a nasty habit of not logging in). However, my G7 was denied so I prodded it. The prod was then contested too with the rationale "When ownership of a Mall is decided by a court, there is notability in that". Nonetheless, I feel that this page violates WP:NOT, as the only sources in the article (except for an unreliable Cinema Treasures link) pertain to a recent court battle over the vacant mall. (Also, I'm rather surprised that I can find three news sources on a mall that's been boarded up for ten years, but I can't find much of anything on Fashion Square Mall, a nearby mall which is more than twice as big and still full of stores...) Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions.   --  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Locally notable eyesore, but not much else to say. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 22:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - contester of Prod - The fact that The State is using powers such as Eminent domain to seize control of a property like this is notable. WP:RS have been supplied. Sure we should have a template on it to state that the process is 'in process', but thats why we have that template. The notable event surrounding the property just hasnt finished playing out thats all. If the case had been decided already, would this nomination be here? As per the Locally notable argument ... as usual the awnser is "There is no "local" clause in WP:N or WP:RS"  Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  23:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about "locally notable" at all. Eminent domain is claimed all the time, there's nothing special about this case. Many malls are long abandoned (Dixie Square Mall, anyone?), so that doesn't make it notable either. And the court case is the only evident assertation of notability here. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Blanchardb is using the 'Local' card, that is why I mentioned that. I think your (TenPoundHammer) view is to US-centric, I am not from the USA. I have never heard of my country expropriating an entire property of this size or type in anything other than wartime. So, to non-US residents, this sort of thing is extreamly notable in its unusualness. As for 'Eminent domain is claimed all the time' somehow I dont believe you actually mean that. Any extrordinary power such as that, if overused, would be removed from the government by the people. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  01:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable enough. Decoratrix (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Mall was greater than 30k sqm GLA, which is in the realm of a sub-regional mall thus making it sizable during its day. Seems to be sufficient information to justify notability, plus there are ongoing matters relating to it. Worth keeping, but mark for future action to plug some of the information gaps. Thewinchester (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Appears notable enough. -- Shark face  217  22:51, 29 December 2007 (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.