Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maplewood 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 (non-admin closure); consensus seems to be that the article meets the notability criterion due to large amount of coverage in various news sources. Only the nominator expressed a (weak) delete sentiment, while five other users expressed a keep sentiment. It is clear that we have a consensus to keep here. - Icewedge (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Maplewood Mall

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

Was an expired prod, however it does have considerable new coverage 792 on Google News so may have claim to notability. Salix alba (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Since it does have news coverage now, why did you even bring it here? DGG (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably a procedural nom. Instead of deleting the article per the expired prod, the OP brought it here for discussion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. --Salix alba (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:DEADLINE. This seems to be a large mall that's been in operation for nearly 35 years.  We can presume that many news articles would have been written about it over that time, and a quick look at Google News Archive suggests there's more than enough to establish notability.  While these secondary sources should be cited to write the article, there is no deadline for the article to be complete. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very week delete not enough community interest to be able to maintain the article. Whilst it does have a good claim to notability, the fact that the prod was unchallenged for five days indicates no one in the community cares much about the article. Such articles are dangerous as vandalism or in-accuracies could creep in. --Salix alba (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * that's not a good criterion. Prod is not a highly watched Wikipedia process, and many inexperienced or occasional eds. don't watchlist. 5 days is a short cycle for many people as well, who might edit only on weekends. The reason you give would negate the present policy of undeleting prods on request. I do often check prod, and I apologize for missing this one. DGG (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article history the has stood since August 2007. The only changes since than have been geocoord and some minor formatting. No one is working on this article. --Salix alba (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I look at WP:PRODSUM every few days and didn't notice it. I also agree that five days is a ridiculously short time to establish consensus on anything, and it excludes whole communities of people who otherwise have plenty to contribute. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.   —Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Among Twin Cities malls, it's one of the more well-known regional malls, with several anchor tenants. It's on a par with the Dales (Southdale, Rosedale, Ridgedale, and Brookdale) and with the non-Dale regional malls (Eden Prairie Center and Burnsville Center).  It certainly has more anchor tenants and more space than Har Mar Mall and Knollwood Mall, which are also listed in the same template and category.  I don't consider it a very interesting mall, but most malls aren't.  I'm going to vote for a keep on this one.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the size alone. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above dml (talk) 19:34, 21 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.