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, no delete votes were made and I withdraw as nominator. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Mall

[edit]

Non-notable mall. Fails WP:RS, Google turns up nothing of use. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 05:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Size and scope, as documented by source, are consistent with past precedents of mall notability. Additional sources should be added to expand article. Alansohn 05:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I am not mistaken, maybe we could use this webpage as a relaible source for this article. Moreover, a google search shows up about 10 000 hits for this mall, which cannot be ignored as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep:~~ ~~Like other malls that have less information here on Wikipedia, this one doesn't seem less notable. 10K Google hits is also more than "nothing of use".~~ -- VegitaU 07:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that about 99% of those Google hits are for directories and yellow pages and so forth. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 11:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Actually it's a little more than 10K. This Google search turned up about 12.6K results. And with 99% of the BS cut out, as you say, it leaves 126 sites with good information. 126 is plenty to search from. Also, where does it say that it has to meet a number of Google hits? And all these malls still have their pages up and running. I'm sure most of them are notable to the people that shop there and use their services. I'm taking that into consideration, I sure wouldn't want my local mall deleted, despite the lack of information. The fact that the article may be sloppily written doesn't make it a candidate for the scrap bin... all it needs is some rewriting and attention. -- VegitaU 11:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. I've tried to rewrite the Alexandria Mall page several times, but so far I've turned up bupkis in terms of WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 12:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What's that they say about "if at first you don't succeed..."? I actually found a couple decent sources, which I shall add to the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 12:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have to admit, you make an excellent point up above. I just read through the essay. Well written and its interesting to see how many of those "arguments to avoid" I've actually committed. I think the main point that the essay comes to is that to arrive at any decision, you must have: consensus through discussion and notability through verifiable sources. Now, I'm not totally sure how to vote on this. -- VegitaU 12:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry for all the talk talk talk here, but I've just found barely enough references to keep this page from deletion in my opinion. I'm closing this as a withdrawn nomination, seeing as no delete votes were made. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 13:22, 31 July 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.