Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Loop (Shopping Center)

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 of the debate was DELETE. The rewrite does not seem to have changed anything. -Splash^talk 18:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Loop (Shopping Center)

Delete NN retail location. Prod remover said, "arguably notable because growing concept and multiple locations in different regions.. debatable enough that deletion should be through debate process" - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 20:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all malls. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 20:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Bucketsofg 20:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as even though the concept may be growing, it's still not notable enough for Wikipedia. We need notablility guidelines for malls and shopping centers if we don't already... WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, User:Youngamerican and I are working on such guidelines, and we already have a draft. I just thought I'd put another mall through AfD to test run my ideas against people's rationales. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 22:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~, Weak keep. There is absolutely nothing innovative about the concept. There must be a dozen of these huge, outdoor, plaza, multi-purpose malls in my city alone with probably another five under construction. The original article was pure marketing crap, and only Hbackman's de-adification makes me think about keeping it. The complete non-notability of the establishment makes me lean towards delete. Is there anything else intersting about it? Kuru ^talk 21:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or ~~merge with Shopping mall as this seems to be a new take on the concept~~. -- JJay 22:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand; how is this a new take? Kuru ^talk 22:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that it is innovative as does press coverage such as this Boston Herald article [1]. I said it seems to be a new take, based on the replacement of an enclosed mall with a Main Street concept with outdoor plazas in a Northern location. Nevertheless, as the Methuen loop is apparently drawing a few million visitors per year, the article should probably be recentered just on that property. -- JJay 23:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing anything terribly original about the design, except maybe its inclusion in a northern location. The branding concept is interesting, though (starbuckification), as is the fairly significant traffic that location is getting. I'm good with erroring on the side of inclusion. Thanks for the info. Kuru ^talk 03:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm not really trying to make a big argument for "uniqueness" as I was basing it strictly on the sources I found. Would be interested in seeing pictures though. -- JJay 03:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, it should be moved to The Loop (shopping center). ~~No vote for now.~~ youngamerican (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic, no references, does not demonstrate signifigance. - brenneman ^{L} 01:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a keep or delete? Also, as we were discussing above, the Loop has been covered extensively in the press, from the planning stages to the present. I have added one reference that was already linked above. Furthermore, would you please explain what you mean by "not encyclopedic"? If we don't know if or why someone has recomended a course of action, we can't properly evaluate it-- JJay 02:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Article has been rewritten to apply only to the one in Methuen Chitchatjf 02:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The similarities between malls vastly outweigh the differences. You've seen one mall, you've seen them all. D e nni ☯ 03:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, individual malls must have something unique and special to be notable enough for an encyclopaedia. This does not. Proto||type 09:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I am very inclusionist on indoor malls, but this seems to be a few anchored strip malls and not of particular interest. youngamerican (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Sandstein 12:11, 1 April 2006 (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.