Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mall at Partridge Creek


 * 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. — TKD::Talk 09:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Mall at Partridge Creek

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Mall that is currently under construction, no apparent notability. About section reads like an advertisement. Nen yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 03:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Doesn't seem like an ad to me. Close to completion so isn't speculation. Large Malls like this one ARE notable as large structures. -Drdisque 04:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, being a large building does not automatically entail notability. If, say, this mall will be the largest building in all of Michigan, it might be notable but it isn't, so it's not. Axem Titanium 04:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Does something really have to be the largest building in an almost 100,000 sq. mi. area to be included in wikipedia? If so there are thousands of articles that need deleting. -Drdisque 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that "largest" is a valid criterion for inculsion, especially for malls (West Edmonton Mall, anyone?), but by no means the only crterion. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unbiased keep as one of the article's major contributors. This mall seems to pass WP:RS and WP:V, and it doesn't read like an ad to me either. I don't think that large malls are inherently notable, but this one seems notable enough to me. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 17:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Though just a regional mall, it has several refs with substantial coverage from major newspapers. Something does not have to fall back on mere superlative size if WP:N is satisfied by multiple independent references in reliable sources with substantial coverage. The stories do not seem to be mere reprints of a press release or wire story. Edison 22:44, 19 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.