Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakdale 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The result was Nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oakdale Mall[edit]

I stubbed this article a while back to remove a highly promotional tone, but on second thought, this mall seems to have nothing going for it. The only sources I could find were very trivial mentions if at all, so this mall fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn, even though the article still hasn't improved much, I'm withdrawing because the precedent is against me. One halfway-decent source has been provided to establish that the mall meets super-regional classification, which is rapidly becoming a criterion for inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a super-regional shopping mall with nearly one million square foot gross leasable area, thus satisfying the nominator's self-described precedent on retention of malls meeting the ICSC super-regional size standard. Alansohn (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just said that Towne Mall didn't meet the precedent, I didn't say I agreed with the precedent. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by continuously refering to one, your leading others to believe that a precedent exists and has consensus, when you know that none does. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1 million sqft makes it notable. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. super-regional malls are notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what gives with the bias against malls? How silly can you get. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no bias against malls whatsoever, just against stub articles on them that barely assert notability if at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps it is time to revive WP:MALL? In any case, this one would fit the bill. RFerreira (talk) 05:45, 18 December 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.