Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rushmore 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 No consensus. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rushmore Mall

Rushmore Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable mall. Contested endorsed prod. Contested by an IP address, which didn't address my concerns, with "malls are notable". I stand by my original justification of "notability not asserted". Akihabara 14:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete keep Only 828995 square feet of gross leasable area per [1], a bit small to be a regional mall. Big enough to be considered a superregional mall, so meets revised WP:MALL No historic or architectural claims to notability., so does not satisfy anything in WP:MALL Meets the proposed guideline for mall notability in area but nothing special otherwise. Edison 16:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Clearly a regional mall. A mall of this size in a metropolitan area no larger than Rapid City is an important building and plays a major role in the history and life of the area. --MatthewUND^(talk) 07:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you should be able to point to where that major röle has been documented, in multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources. Other editors are saying that it has not been. You've cited no sources so far. And the article cites no sources. Uncle G 10:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of meeting WP:CORP through being the primary subject of multiple independent and reliable published sources. GRBerry 23:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails everything in WP:MALL. Is only half the size normally required. Nothing else noteable about the mall is given. No significant cultural, social and economic impact nor achitecture explained. No sources. Other mall pages have a specific overview table on the left that gives general details (including reasons why it would pass WP Mall such as the floor space). This article doesnt have one because it obviously doesnt satisfy anything.--155.144.251.120 03:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This just seems like any old mall. The stores there are probably in the majority of malls. Just not notable. Ganfon 03:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. --Scimitar 16:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The mall is a notable business center. No reason not to keep it. --Lee Vonce 17:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The reason not to keep it is simple -- it fails WP:CORP and WP:MALL. I believe the default stance should be delete until meets notability requirements, not no reason not to keep it. /Blaxthos 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable; fails WP:MALL. No evidence of credible third-party coverage. Fairsing 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as a superregional mall this should be notable and meets WP:MALL guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 00:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per MatthewUND and Ymaguchi, it is a superregional mall and meets WP:MALL. --Oakshade 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Yamaguchi... superregional, passes the proposed WP:MALL... I'd say that qualifies it as a keep.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:31, 25 January 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.