Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Place Shopping Centre


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Port Place Shopping Centre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN 145,000 square ft mall. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage). – which this is clearly below. Epeefleche (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The theory of WP:OUTCOMES is that we can presume the wp:notability of larger malls, based on a history at AfD that WP:GNG-sources can generally be found. Turning this around to argue that we can presume the non-notability of "smaller" malls is not a policy-based argument.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you look for sources? If so, where did you look?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As to Outcomes, of course it is used in common consensus practice to influence AfD !votes for deleting stand-alone articles ... see, for example, how Outcomes is used in the AfD discussions here. It is not used, as you assert -- only to influence a keep !vote, but never to influence a delete !vote.
 * You can always assume that I've done a wp:before search when I nominate an article, in accord with the strictures of wp:before. No need to ask. And I'm not sure why you're asking the same question of all four editors at this AfD who !voted Delete (though you didn't pose it to the lone editor !voting Keep, so I'm guessing the exercise is not just so that you can learn from others how to improve your ref-searching skills) -- I agree with the comment of RoySmith below that "If you know of some real references which establish notability, please supply them. But just tossing out random, "here, try this and see what you can get" links is not useful." Given that your addition to the article just now was to a local community paper with a circulation of 1,898, which of course does not count towards notability, I'm wondering if you also have failed to find references that establish notability after a search, and are just asking each editor this question for some other reason that is difficult to imagine. Epeefleche (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So your answer in 187 words and a ref is that you decline to answer. Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Some sources have been added to the article on the mall's history to add to its notability as one of Nanaimo's first indoor malls. More sources, including newspaper articles on the mall (not all of which would be available online, but can still be used), can also be located to add to the article. Creativity-II (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Which of those refs do you believe provide substantial non-local RS evidence of notability? Attention solely from local media (Nanaimo Daily News; 5,394 circulation), or media of limited interest and circulation (wallandceiling.ca), or directories (mallsindex.com), is not an indication of notability. Also, fyi – Nanaimo, while it admittedly is the "Bathtub Racing Capital of the World," has a population of 83,810. Epeefleche (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Outside the Daily News, all of them. Just because you don't think any of those refs count toward notability and you see fit to diminish or minimize their usefulness does not mean they don't. Creativity-II (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of my personal views. It's a question of wp notability rules. As to the refs:


 * 1) www.mallsindex.flotilia.com/item3960 – this is a non-RS directory. Directories don't count towards notability. And non-RSs don't count towards notability. See wp:N.
 * 2) Turning Inside Out: Port Place Mall In Nanaimo, BC – this is in "wallandceiling.ca", which strives to serve the "wall and ceiling industry" in Canada. No indicia of this being an RS.  And in any event, media of limited interest and circulation are not indications of notability.
 * 3) Merchants bail out as Port Place mall gets ready to renovate at the Nanaimo Daily News – you agree this does not count towards notability.
 * 4) Commercial developers take advantage of market with several projects around the city at the Nanaimo Daily News – you agree this does not count towards notability.
 * 5) Port Place Shopping Centre – This is an advertisement. Advertisements don't count towards notability. See WP:ORGIND.  And non-RSs don't count towards notability.  See wp:N. Epeefleche (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable mall; no coverage outside of its hometown newspaper. Could be redirected to Nanaimo, but it isn't mentioned there and I don't see a good place in the article to mention it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you look for sources? If so, where did you look?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article at Victoria shows a way, link. Unscintillating (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's two possible redirect targets. One would be List of shopping malls in Canada, as I suggested elsewhere in this AfD.  Another would be Nanaimo as suggested above.  It's not clear to me which is the better choice.   If I search for a mall by name, am I likely to be more interested in malls in general, or in the city where this particular mall exists?  I imagine for different people, the answer will be different.  Which leaves me unsure which is the better target.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - Small mall unknown outside of its hometown, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  04:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did you look for sources? Unscintillating (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to mainly use Google, and everything in it (Images, Books, News etc), Sometimes others find things I don't and sometimes I find things others don't, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to List of shopping malls in Canada. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage.  Examining the references:
 * indiscriminate directory listing.
 * niche market industry publication ("Serving Canada's wall and ceiling industry"). Talks about the mall from the point of view of a construction project with difficult logistics, which does nothing to establish the notability of the mall itself.
 * Trivial coverage in a local publication.
 * Passing mention in a local-coverage article about a number of construction projects.
 * Advertising brochure, unacceptable for establishing notability.
 * In addition, a google search failed to turn up any references which establish notability.
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you do the minimal searches advised by WP:BEFORE D1? Did you repeat this search with the previous name?  What WP:ATD alternatives to deletion did you consider?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In order, "yes", "no", and "I'm OK with a redirect" -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is a Template:Find sources with the name of the mall for 37 years from 1967 to 2004:
 * Unscintillating (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that you know of some citation which would show notability?
 * news -- Gives me, Your search - "Harbour Park Mall" - did not match any news results. (and a link to our own article).
 * newspapers -- Gives me 16 results. I read every one of them.  They are all either advertisements, or short articles which mention this mall in passing and in no way establish notability.
 * books -- the vast majority of these are travel guide books (i.e. indiscriminate sources). The first hit, Harbour City: Nanaimo in Transition, 1920-1967 actually got me excited that there might be something useful there, but unfortunately, the link is broken (Google says, 404. That’s an error.  The requested URL /books?id=4woJAo-Ke_UC&pg=PA20&dq=%22Harbour+Park+Mall%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=E7mlU93rIpCTyATIu4LwBA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA was not found on this server. That’s all we know..  So I am unable to really evaluate that.
 * scholar -- one hit, but a false match.
 * JSTOR -- "No results found".
 * If you know of some real references which establish notability, please supply them. But just tossing out random, "here, try this and see what you can get" links is not useful.
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As we have discussed on your talk page, your definition of WP:GNG (I guess that is what you meant by "real references") is a personal definition. In an above comment, you've used the word "trivial" unlike how it is defined at WP:GNG.  Anyway, thanks for reporting what you found on that template.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As we have discussed on your talk page, your definition of WP:GNG (I guess that is what you meant by "real references") is a personal definition. In an above comment, you've used the word "trivial" unlike how it is defined at WP:GNG.  Anyway, thanks for reporting what you found on that template.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is the Google books snippet from BC Business, Volume 17, Issues 8-12, Pacific Rim Publications, 1989, "In the city's downtown, the Harbour Park Mall has been revitalized by the arrival of London Drugs — the first appearance of this major chain on the Island, north of Victoria. The Mall, owned by the Bon Street Group, is being enhanced by ..."  This material is non-trivial (as defined at WP:GNG), and supports WP:GNG-type notability for the topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment  reports, "Time Magazine has reported that Nanaimo has more square meters of retail space per capita than any other city in North America!".  This reference  webpage supports the idea that shopping centres in Nanaimo are wp:notable as a group.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That reference is an advertisement for a Bed and Breakfast. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I should not have called it a "reference". I tried to find the Time reference without success.  What I found instead was that Time reported that Nanaimo has become known for its coverage by Google Earth, such that every piece of property is linked, you can watch fire trucks move in real time, and the history of the movements of public grass-mowing equipment is tracked with GPS linked to Google.
 * As for the point at hand, which is that Nanaimo shopping centers appear to be by themselves wp:notable, how about which is a government study done for Parksville, British Columbia, a city to the North of Nanaimo, which states, ""Sometimes known as the Mecca for island shopping, Nanaimo has 4 major shopping centers; Country Club Centre, Port Place Shopping Centre, Rutherford Mall, and Woodgrove Center.  The City of Nanaimo has 5.5 million square feet of retail and service space..."  (And note the WP:N attention describing Port Place as a "major" centre.)  If you want more sources that group the malls, .  Unscintillating (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the point at hand, which is that Nanaimo shopping centers appear to be by themselves wp:notable, how about which is a government study done for Parksville, British Columbia, a city to the North of Nanaimo, which states, ""Sometimes known as the Mecca for island shopping, Nanaimo has 4 major shopping centers; Country Club Centre, Port Place Shopping Centre, Rutherford Mall, and Woodgrove Center.  The City of Nanaimo has 5.5 million square feet of retail and service space..."  (And note the WP:N attention describing Port Place as a "major" centre.)  If you want more sources that group the malls, .  Unscintillating (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment about WP:GNG WP:GNG is the "general notability guideline".  WP:GNG notability can be determined using local sources.  WP:GNG notability requires significant (not substantial) coverage that is non-trivial, where trivial is a low bar that excludes things like phone book entries.  Non-trivial coverage "need not be the main topic of the source material."  In the general theory of WP:GNG as discussed at WT:GNG, two "good" sources are required.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment about WP:N The basic theory of WP:N is found in the nutshell.  wp:notability means that the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time.  In addition to "attracts attention", the keyword in WP:N is "evidence".  There are various forms of evidence, but evidence is not restricted to the material that supports WP:GNG.  In addition, WP:N is a guideline regarding whether a topic merits a standalone article...it is not a content or a deletion policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment about WP:Deletion policy Arguments for deletion are based on WP:Deletion policy, and are not free to ignore the WP:ATD alternatives to deletion, as we are here to build and WP:PRESERVE an encyclopedia, not run off our content contributors.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Given the relatively small size of the centre, merge was a consideration, such as I recommended for a similarly-sized mall at WP:Articles for deletion/Vasundhara Metro Mall.  I also considered a move to something like Cityscape of Nanaimo, or List of shopping centres in Nanaimo.
 * Google books for "Harbour Park Mall" shows repeated references to the topic as a point of reference.
 * As for WP:N, the topic is wp:notable; satisfying WP:GNG with full-length articles that discuss the topic directly and in detail from a local newspaper and a regional trade journal, with additional WP:GNG WP:RS material found in an article from a newspaper in a nearby town and a BC business journal; with additional (non-WP:GNG) wp:notability for the attention the topic has attracted as a venue; with additional worthiness for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a point of reference, which falls into the gazetteer.
 * Unlike Vasundhara Metro Mall, which had barely been built, this topic has been around since 1952, so WP:NTEMP comes into consideration.
 * References show that a shopping centre north of town has more than 700,000 sqft of retail space, and that there are at least four shopping centres in town. The fact that we don't have articles on those other shopping centres is not a reason to exclude the material here.  We need to appreciate our content contributors, and they should be free to merge this topic to the city article or expand the current article to include other shopping districts, without AfD specialists supervising.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Here are two non-local sources, one a national magazine, and one a newspaper internationally located in Everett, WA. Neither is of great WP:GNG weight, but show the topic receiving attention from the world at large as per the nutshell of WP:N.  One is from a defunct Toronto-published magazine, Saturday Night (magazine), that draws attention to two 8-foot concrete salmon at Harbour Park Mall, and was found on an EBSCO database, MasterFILE Premier.  The second was found on nl.newsbank.com, and the source curiously references both Harbour Park Mall and Port Place Shopping Centre.


 * 114.4:31, MasterFILE Premier.
 * Unscintillating (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; for one, WP:OUTCOMES isn't a policy or guideline, so it's not an accurate reflection of broad consensus to apply to AFD anyway. However, the general notability guideline (GNG)&mdash;a guideline that is a reflection of consensus&mdash;does, at the very least, require significant (in-depth) coverage of the topic. GNG is admittedly subjective to a degree, but as RoySmith points out, the mentions in the sources given either aren't substantial (i.e., coverage is merely incidental to some other subject) or fail other portions of GNG's source requirements / merely prove existence. -- slakr \ talk / 02:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To the extent that your !vote argues from "substantial" coverage, this is not an argument from WP:GNG. As I said above, WP:GNG notability requires significant (not substantial) coverage that is non-trivial, where trivial is a low bar that excludes things like phone book entries.  Non-trivial coverage "need not be the main topic of the source material."  What Unscintillating (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding your reference to "in-depth", this term does not appear in WP:GNG. "Depth of coverage" does, but is a different concept.  What WP:GNG says is, " 'Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail".  What matters is not the "in-depthness"; but, as per the WP:N nutshell, if the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What was your analysis of the WP:ATD? Unscintillating (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Nanaimo. There is a small amount of references in a news search, not enough for an article, but enough to pop a sentence or two with proper verifiability in the town's article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not a large or particularly well-covered mall. p  b  p  21:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. See "Port Place adds major tenant"WebCite (June 9, 2005), "Port Place mall sold"WebCite (December 28, 2006), "Port Place owners eye condos"WebCite (September 11, 2007), and "Phase 1 of Port Place renovations nears completion"WebCite (April 21, 2011) from the Nanaimo News Bulletin (see Nanaimopermanent link for more information about the newspaper). There is also some coverage of the mall in this articleWebCite (January 26, 2012) from the Nanaimo News Bulletin: "Water gushed onto Front Street shortly after noon when a drill crew accidentally bored into a water main in the Port Place Shopping Centre parking lot. ... Water flooded Front Street between Promenade Drive and Museum Way and undermined sections of the Port Place Shopping Centre parking lot, as well as the sidewalk on the south side of Front Street, as it cascaded into the downtown Boat Basin. ... Drill crews have worked at Port Place Shopping Centre since last summer as part of First Capital Realty's efforts to deal with dry cleaning fluid contamination discovered in the soil." This articleWebCite (September 26, 2008) from the Nanaimo News Bulletin says: "And a little further south, Port Place Shopping Centre's owners have big plans to redevelop into a mixed commercial-residential site, possibly including a highrise and townhomes, with the timing coinciding with Great Canadian Gaming Corporation's $30-million redevelopment of its casino. ... Port Place Shopping Centre's owners envision it becoming much like the Whistler Village, albeit on a smaller scale, where people can live, work and play in a quaint, upscale urban environment. The vision is for a centre where people can get up in the morning, walk downstairs to have coffee or read the newspaper, go for a stroll along the harbourfront and then head off to work." This articleWebCite (October 4, 2005) from the Nanaimo News Bulletin says the First Nations Cultural Celebration was held in Port Place. This articleWebCite (February/March 2012 issue) from The Trowel is titled "Turning Inside Out: Port Place Mall In Nanaimo, BC". The Trowel is a trade publication owned by One Point Media; see http://pointonemedia.com/content/trade-publications. Roy notes above that it is a "niche market industry publication", but I don't think that detracts from the publication's reliability. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Port Place Shopping Centre to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Per wp:AUD, the sources' audience must also be considered. Attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. Your block quotes above from the published twice-a-week Nanaimo News Bulletin bring this to mind. Circulation: 5,394.


 * Also, your reliance on The Trowel, published 6 times a year by the BC Wall & Ceiling Association, "expressly for" the "western Canadian wall and ceiling industry".


 * Similarly, passing mentions, of ordinary stuff that happens at the least notable malls in the world (workers hit a water pipe and water gushed out on the street in front of the mall?) doesn't seem like the substantial coverage required by GNG -- though it is your first above-cited block quote example of notability. Epeefleche (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I support keeping the article's content. I have equal preference with keeping the article as is and a merge/redirect to Nanaimo. There is sufficient reliable coverage of Port Place Shopping Centre that it could be discussed in its own article, or in Nanaimo and an article spun out later if it receives more substantial coverage from nonlocal publications. Cunard (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: I was about to close it as no consensus, since we are 7:3 delete+redirect/keep (at the edge), and the discussion is about which sources are RS and independent. This question can be discussed forever, but I will still relist it for one more week to give all of us a chance to discuss new sources which appeared here.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for relisting. One of the keeps has since updated its position (to equal preference with keeping the article or merging/redirecting it). And there are a couple of others who would accept a redirect. In any event, I don't think that 7-3 (since you identified the editor positions by that more than 2-1 margin) is typically seen as "no consensus", though of course this is not strictly a numbers game.  Also, when looking at the arguments, those focused more on wp policy (such as wp:AUD and GNG) are usually given more weight, which I think would tilt the margin to even greater than 7-3 in the !vote. But in any case, one of the 3 keeps now accepts a redirect.Epeefleche (talk)


 * The issue of ordinary stuff that happens (, above) is the key point here. Let's say I wanted to write an article about St. Mary, Star of the Sea (Bronx, NY).  I can find lots of local coverage.  For example, .  Is that article enough to establish notability? I think The Island Current qualifies as a reliable source.  It's a printed newspaper, with a paid circulation of several thousand.  It's not self-published.  It's not a passing mention.  But, there are two problems.  One, is that it's local, so it fails WP:AUD.  But, more than that, the event being discussed in the article is mundane.  It's about a 8th grade school basketball team.  Schools all over have basketball teams.  They all play games.  Sometimes a team goes undefeated.  They all get their pictures taken at the end of the season in their basketball uniforms.  They all have wonderful teachers who put in a lot of hard work organizing the league and deserve to be recognized.  In the context of a local community newspaper, it's news.  It's what helps tie the community together.  But, in the larger context, it's nothing special.  Maybe it got a couple of sentences in some NY Times article about school athletics in the city.  Maybe it got a 30 second sound bite on the local TV news because it was a slow day and they needed a human interest story.  But, passing WP:N?  No way.  But, wait, I'm sure if I slog through the archives, I can find dozens of articles about St. Mary's.  And not just about their sports teams.  They got a new roof.  They had some vandals break into the building.  A new priest was appointed.  Weddings, christenings, funerals.  The kids marched in the Memorial Day parade.  The basement was flooded in a storm.  Does any of that add up to WP:N.  No, sorry.
 * OK, so let's move on to coverage in a major national newspaper. We've got http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/nyregion/new-york-archdiocese-to-close-24-schools.html?smid=pl-share.  That certainly solves the problem of local coverage.  The NY Times is one of the largest newspapers in the world.  True, this was covered in the "N.Y. / Region" section, but still, the NY Times' local coverage has a higher bar than The Island Current's.  The bigger problem is that this article 'isn't about St. Mary's.  It's about a larger issue with the New York Archdiocese's financial problems.  If St. Mary's hadn't been on the list, but some other school had, exactly the same article would have been written.  This is a prime example of coverage in passing.  Same with http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/realestate/29livi.html.  And http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/fashion/weddings/ellen-shave-jonathan-paradiso-weddings.html?emc=eta1. We need to be discriminating between things that exist and things that are significant.
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See my updated position above. I primarily support keeping the article's content per WP:PRESERVE. I have equal preference with keeping the article as is or merging/redirecting it to another article. Cunard (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with a redirect (or a delete). But per my above comments still do not think a keep or merge are in order.  And kudos to Roy for a thoughtful and well-stated post on "ordinary stuff that happens". If I were a fan of essays, I would say that has the makings of one. Well said. I believe we called the criteria "notability" for a reason. Epeefleche (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of your essay is analysis of St. Mary's, which is WP:WAX. For example, 8th grade teams don't get millions of visits per annum, and don't need roads built by the local government.  And 8th grade teams are not venues or reference points on the map.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In the last sentence, I don't see any relation between the word "significant" and the notability guideline. Wp:prominence is the WP:Due weight threshold for what goes into an article, and WP:IINFO is the difference between statistics and encyclopedic material.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge selectively to Nanaimo. NorthAmerica1000 03:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:GNG does not require non-local sources; and WP:AUD, which is not a criteria typically applied to mall AfDs, only requires one "regional, national, or international source".  Unscintillating (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - due to age, history, and location, seems to cross threshold into notability. Epeefleche's mall AFD spree has had some bad nominations, but this one probably merited discussion.  At very least, this discussion is so long I can't imagine finding a consensus at this juncture in the article's history.--Milowent • hasspoken  02:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: the size of the mall is questionable, but it's age and location are notable enough to warrant an article. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2014 (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.