Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redlands 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Redlands Mall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Whole article includes only one source. House1090 (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: Why would you delete a page for having one source? --Annexxation (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018!  (distænt write)  02:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Just having only a single source is not a good thing, but it's also not necessarily a reason for deletion. What's going to determine whether this article is kept is going to be probably whether the mall is considered Wikipedia notable enough per WP:CORP. Right now, a source citing the sale of a local mall is probably not enough to establish notability. A Google search does find things such as this, this and this as well as other articles, etc. but I'm not sure if that's enough per WP:CORPDEPTH or it it's still too WP:AUD. It probably would be a good idea to post a Template:Please see at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shopping Centers to see if editors used to working on this genre of article can provide any feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --  Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not an appropriate rationale for deletion (see WP:BEFORE). Re: sources -- aside from the usual flood of local coverage, a few minutes of searching finds this academic study, this article in the LA Times, and discussion in ISBN 9780738528830 and ISBN 9780738559018. Certainly enough to at least merge. Either way, this shouldn't have been at AfD in the first place. James (talk/contribs) 13:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? No its not. It has a lot of sources and made sense! --2601:205:C100:424D:8DCC:77F9:49DD:8027 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2018 (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.