Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Plaza 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 Speedy A7 delete. No prejudice against re-creation, but notability was not asserted. It's a mall. Or, rather, it was a mall. Frank | talk 16:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Mountain Plaza Mall[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From the PROD: Fails notability at WP:NOTNEWS (Item #4). This unsourced article is a news item of local (unknown village, town, city, county, country) interest only. Eeekster (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability.--Kubigula (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Already marked for speedy. Non-notable WP:ORG failure which appears unlikely to be addressed in the near future. A shopping mall does not automatically fall under the conventions for places. Fæ (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fae, can you point me to a consensus, a discussion to bolster your claim about lack of automatic notability? I don't disagree with you, I'd just like to know. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This falls under the conventional Articles for deletion/Common outcomes which states "Major, unnumbered streets and roads beyond the level of a side street or neighborhood roadway may be created, but are not guaranteed to survive AfD." You will note that I said "not automatically" as a mall (which has a literal and historical definition as a covered part of a street) might be notable for reasons of documented social impact or historic importance (all the normal Notability guidelines apply) but they are not an exception to the general policy. This is my understanding but I'm open to re-interpretation in this area as what appears common-sense does not always turn out to be the consensus for places. My inclusion of ORG as a rationale is due to malls are not always the same thing as their location - most modern shopping malls are organizations in their own right and may be located in a geographic place (which may have another title) but are subject to re-branding, take-overs, mergers and de-mergers as per any other type of company. When we see articles about malls this tends to be the interpretation being used (hence WP:ORG must apply) compared to the historic interpretation of the mall being a place (such as the Pall Mall which is the probable model for all later "malls" (according to the OED)). Fæ (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fae, this is very useful--thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2010 (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.