Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pad site

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pad site[edit]

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

Deprodded. Search for sourcing found nothing that could develop this beyond a WP:DICDEF, and the fact that it's been completely untouched for seven years should prove how non-notable it is. I failed to find any useful sourcing to flesh this out. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two minutes of searching found: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Perhaps not enough for significant expansion but likely worth merging to shopping mall. --Michig (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gene93k provides a starting list of references; others exist. There's periodic discussion of the topic in the issues of Franchise Times, although I'm limited in my access to that at the moment. Probably in other industry sources, also. Ideally, with a little digging, some history of the concept might even emerge from sources discussing the history of strip mall development. This won't ever be a very large article, most likely, but that's never been a requirement. Nor does article improvement have a deadline; it's unfortunate that this has gone for so long without anyone tending to it, but that's not a deletion reason. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought TPH specialised in retail topics and yet, even here, he comes up short. Here's a Dummies book on the subject, for example. Warden (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ~~Michig and~~ Colonel Warden. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not in favour of keeping, at least as a standalone article.--Michig (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2013 (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.