Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janesville 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 (no consensus).  jj137  ♠ 22:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Janesville Mall

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

In its current state, this page is quite indiscriminate in nature (the study about right turns is a neat, if unsourced, factoid). Beyond that, some sentences are POV ("financial pressures from a weakened economy" and "...land-locked store at Beloit Mall was now unbearably cramped" for instance)... and on top of it all, I can't find a single source to verify any of the information contained here. (The article has two sources, but one is from the mall owner's website.) The only sources I could find reporting on the mall were trivial in nature (e.g. opening/closure of a store at the mall). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:17, 24 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) 01:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nominator is right.   Happy Holidays!!  Malinaccier (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - article is a complete mess Macy's123 01:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep the article covers a large regional mall that makes credible claims of notability. Sources are cited, but need to be brought inline, and additional sources are available. Issues with prose are exceedingly poor justifications for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, for many of the same reasons given by Alansohn. Malls are long-lasting structures with a fair amount of importance for their local areas.  Good sourcing is generally available with work.  The mall owners' own publications can validly be used for non-controversial detail. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep there seem to be sufficient sources they just need to be integrated into the article. --W.marsh 00:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Those sources are mostly about events at the mall, not about the mall itself. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve - the sources are there, but I don't currently have the time to integrate them myself. Calling an article "indiscriminate" and "a mess" is vague - provide constructive criticism and specific examples, not blanket statements.  Finally, if you don't like the prose - or believe it to be POV - you have stated a desire to be an editor, so EDIT IT.  Deletion is a ham-handed technique for effecting change. DiogenesNY (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to use the condition of the prose as a rationale for deletion. I'm sorry if I made it seem that way. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I've given the page a thorough copy edit. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:58, 26 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.