Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockingham 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. Sandstein 17:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Rockingham Mall

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Tagged for references since March with no improvement. Small, non-notable mall, fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I doubt sources would actually help anything, as it would still just be an article on a small unremarkable mall. It seems that a common deletion outcome for strip malls is delete.  Also appears to fail WP:CORP.  If something remarkable had happened at the mall at one time, then it might be a different matter.  The article does not give the impression that this is the case, and I was unable to find anything relevant to prove otherwise (though searching is not made easier by the similarly named but apparently much larger mall located a few hundred meters away). --Pekaje 23:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Mall not sufficently notable for his proper article but can be mentionned in the town's article.--JForget 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Smaller than a regional mall in its present state at least, at 344,076 square feet. All the same, anyone wishing to spend $3 per article could find several of the 104 articles at Google News archive with substantial coverage of this mall (as opposed to passing refs). It apparently hurt the Methuen Mall, and was in turn hurt (in sales) by the larger Mall at Rockingham Park. It is unusual for one to go from enclosed to open, with as much transformation as this one had. Seems to have had an effect on malls across the state line, which is not common for a local strip mall. Edison 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete view - simply lacks the non-trivial secondary sources need to establish notability. Bridgeplayer 19:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Edison, even though he expressed a delete view I believe that this subject is notable to pass our inclusion guidelines. Burntsauce 17:24, 23 August 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.