Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amsterdam 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The result was withdrawn by nom. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam Mall

Contested prods, without improvement. Unsourced articles about a group of malls, which appear to fail WP:N. Most are pathetic stubs, and some articles refer to dead or nearly dead malls. Wikipedia is not a directory of defunct or near-defunct shopping malls. Ohconfucius 06:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Withdrawn Ohconfucius 01:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: (Per Lexington Mall): This has been debated before. Your previous reasoning included that it was "being demolished" which is far from reality. I live within minutes and drive by this almost daily and can assure you it is still standing. So are you changing your reasoning in just one day? Per prior comments, similar arguments were discussed in the failed AfD for Kyova Mall which has a long and interesting history. Malls listed are also notable for their localities and do not necessarily need to be representative of a more worldwide or national view. If that was the case, we'd be best erasing many localised entries because they fail to present a more nationalistic view. A blanket nomination should be thrown out, IMO. Notability is not a blanket -- each mall should be delt with individually, addressing specific issues with each. I'll also repeat what was said in a previous blanket-AFD-case. "Just because the malls aren't important to you, doesn't mean they aren't important to everybody." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre 2000 for a failed AFD. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article has been improved with citations based upon my research at Abandoned. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a classic laundry list nomination that includes articles with widely-varying levels of content. A look at the current version of the Manalapan Mall shows multiple, reliable sources. Other articles can also demonstrate notability. This should be split up and addressed on the merits of each individual article. Alansohn 13:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Malls are a distinct 20th century product of technology and real estate investment. Since wikipedia is not paper we can track some of the charactaristics and development of these sites. Although some of these articles are lacking details or references I think wikipedia can serve as a neutral (non corporate) source for the history of the mall. --Helm.ers 17:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist separately and Keep in the meanwhile. It is sometimes convenient to list more than one at a time, but then the articles should be similar enough in notability for a common judgment. We might well agree on the deletion of some, such as Tri City. DGG 00:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all ~~and don't relist~~ - Haven't we gone through this before? Someone lists a crapload of malls in one clump; they all get kept because nobody likes en masse nominations. In fact, this list right here shares some common mall pages with the older nom linked to above! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 00:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.