Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchor store

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.  Sandstein  16:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor store[edit]

Anchor store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article hasn't seen an iota of expansion since creation several years ago. It's been tagged with a USA-centric template for as long as I can recall. Regardless of the fact that the page seems largely unchanged, it is mostly a dicdef without sources. I don't see it ever being expanded beyond a dicdef, either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't see how this could reasonably be expanded. However tagging it as biased in favour of the US seems unfair. It is rather a US-topic. -Rushyo (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Muntuwandi. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards keep. References can be found. Someone just has to take the time to look for them. I believe that the topic also will pass muster with a little work. However, the article as it presently stands does indeed stink. With a little TLC, however, this article has great potential. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A good bit more than a dicdef, and from what I've found on the Internet (unfortunately, not reliable sources), certainly has the potential to expand. --Carnildo (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep every time a new mall is proposed this is a frequent topic of discussion in the newspaper; the article tells a bit about the history of it too. JJL (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has the potential to be a great article -- way more that a dictionary definition. It is sad that it has been so neglected, but that's not usually a good reason to delete. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easy to support or expand, though the latter's not a real reason to delete. 600+ google book hits for "anchor store" and 600+ for ""anchor tenant". Plenty of books on property management, real estate development, architecture, building codes etc. e.g. [1] , [2] , [3], [4] among others. This book on regional shopping centers has "anchor tenant" in the title. John Z (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Potential to be expanded beyond a dicdef. Needs a clean up, though. --t b c ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There must be a way o expand upon thsi article. This is a very common term, and carries with it a great deal more than a dicdef (such as impact on malls, etc.) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Out of interest, you say this is a common term so i was wondering if you have any sources that could be used. Seddσn talk Editor Review 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Just saw the sources above. Change to keep. Seddσn talk Editor Review 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With a bit of work, this article can be supported. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is nothing US Centric about Anchor Store - See Here. Additionally, anyone who has access to any Victor Gruen background material could probably give this article plenty of sourcing and notability.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term, no - the article as it is currently written, yes (which is the reason US-centricity was mentioned). Grutness...wha? 02:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Shopping mall. It's a term that's important to cover in the overall article on Shopping malls (or at least on American ones, dunno about other countries), but it's still just a term. I.e. a dictionary definition. --Rividian (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC
I would have to oppose a merge. Although the term is usually used in the context of shopping malls, it is also used in terms of shopping districts, areas and streets. It is broader than its application to malls. And I believe it has been established above that this is more than just a dictionary definition. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Rividian. The concept in inextricably linked with that of the shopping mall (and yes, it's certainly a worldwide concept, though the term "Anchor tenant" is used in many countries such as here (New Zealand) and Australia). It's beyoind the size of a dictdef, but only marginally - it would almost certainly make more sense as part of the article on malls in general. Grutness...wha? 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it relates solely to shopping malls. See comment above. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added a few sources, and there are hundreds that could be added to further support the use of the term as notable. Alansohn (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly not a dictdef now. The article could use some work. The number of internal links here is quite high so many editors are expecting that this topic is notable and needs an article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anchor_store&oldid=1137563675"