Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frenchtown Square 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   Delete. The first keep argument is not valid. Having a category and a list for X does not mean that every X is notable enough to have its own article. We have a list of Canadians and a category of Canadian people, but not every Canadian gets his or her own article, even if we can verify that he or she exists... As for the court case: the case is perhaps notable, but the mall is not notable because of the case. When your case is accepted, there will be documents. This is not the kind of reliable independent sourcing that gives notability (although it is obiously a perfectly acceptable source once you have an article where notability is established). Fram (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Frenchtown Square Mall

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

This mall doesn't seem to be the subject of any significant reliable sources. Over a year ago I tried to fix this up with sources, but I ended up adding nothing more than:
 * 1) An article on Phar-Mor, which merely mentions a store in Monroe and says nothing about the fact that said store was in the mall);
 * 2) A PR piece about a second Elder-Beerman store being opened — the link wouldn't work when I tried to put it in, so that's just a bare ref)
 * 3) A (now dead) real estate listing for Office Max; and
 * 4) A court document pertaining to a case involving a couple gift shops in the mall.

While that court case might make the mall notable, I would say that the near-total lack of any other sources would indicate that there's nothing special about this mall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions.   --  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Harrumph. Well I certainly wouldn't let a boy take my daughter to a place called "Frenchtown Square"! Mandsford (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Eh? How much for di' the little girl?" >:P Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  12:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep – In that we have a category and a list of Shopping malls in Michigan and this a a fairly large shopping mall in Michigan. I would figure the two would go hand-in-hand.  But hey, that’s just me. ShoesssS Talk 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if there are no reliable sources? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment' – I am not trying to be argumentative – sarcastic or mocking, but I can’t believe you just made that statement.  Please take your pick from the 45 reliable – creditable – verifiable – 3rd party sources as proved here,, that show the mall actually exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs)
 * Most of those are just trivial mentions or press releases. I see no source, except maybe the one on the theater, which could be considered substantial. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe the following links provide proof of existence of the Mall., , ,  , , , ,  Finally the actual mall's website   And just to make sure the mall really – really existed, I checked Michigan's Official Travel and Tourism Site which gave me this result, .  That should be enough proff of their existence. ShoesssS Talk 22:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All those do is prove that the mall exists. The first one is a press release, the second is actually about Fort Saginaw Mall, the third has no substantial content, and so on. If all you can do is prove that the mall exists, there's no real content, is there? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear what you are saying! However, there does not have to be extensive - indepth coverage of the mall.  In that we have both a category and a list titled Shopping malls in Michigan and the Frenchtown Square Mall is a mall in Michigan, the author has only to prove the existence of the mall to be allowed to write and post an article on the mall here at Wikipedia.  If the category and list were stated as Important or Significant Malls in Michigan, I would agree with you.  However, the way the category and lists are now structured and defined, I got to say Keep.   ShoesssS Talk 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that Case Law was set by the Frenchtown v. Lemston thing does carry weight. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  11:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it was just a blip in the mall's history. Several malls have been the center of lawsuits before. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Several others have been involved in lawsuits, yes. But how many have been the source of a legal precedent, that is what Case Law refers to. Being the source of a precedent that then carries on to affect all other shopping centres, makes for notability. How long ago it was makes for even more notability as testament that the precedent has stood that long, and is still valid and in use. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  23:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: So now we're going to set precedent that every mall that has ever filed a lawsuit is notable enough? That would probably be every mall in the country, older than a year or so.  Bad idea - this one isn't notable.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nowhere have I said that we are setting a precedent, as I have tried to clearly say above, This shopping facility set a legal precedent in Frenchtown v. Lemston. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nowhere have I said that you said you are setting a precedent. It may not be intentional, but trust me, it happens. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:10, 4 June 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.