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.
Weak keep. The mall has 120+ stores, comparable to the Great Mall and other famous ones. WP:DP (edit - I meant to reference WP:RS) focuses primarily on establishing verifiability for claims in academic articles, and really isn't suitable for judging notability of major local malls. An article about the mall is appropriate as a means of providing information to locals or visitors. Establishing notability for attractions such as malls is naturally more difficult since the internet attention they draw is naturally concentrated on travel guides and what not rather than more scholarly publications. Intuitively, there is good reason to believe that a reasonable number of Wikipedia readers will want information about a major mall such as this one. Remember WP:IGNORE. --xDanielxTalk22:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources exist it would appear. I really don't have the time to look all over the place for it, but here are a couple even I have found without any trouble: [1][2]MathmoTalk22:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of them is a real estate dealers page, the other is a PR release. Neither come anywhere near independent or reliable. The are substantial, substantial advertising that is. All information needs can be met better by their website 23:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC) DGG
Keep per XDanielx and I will always keep that argument for such malls. Always notable center for a large touristic area , Daytona Beach.--JForget01:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but WP:USEFUL is not a Wikipedia policy, and I would venture to say (as I have said regarding other individual parts of the essay) that much of the argumentation within the essay are rather ill-founded. The section you referenced gives no reasoning for why usefulness is not an appropriate standard apart from "it's subjective" - well, so it notability, source reliability, and essentially any other standard that can be used in an AfD discussion. Of course subjectivity isn't black and white, but I think the usefulness of this article, while not enormous, clearly outweighs the cost of preserving the article in the database, which is literally in the ballpark of one hundredth of one penny per year. The other argument, that "other sites exist apart from X where some material Y could be posted, therefore Y should not be included in X" (X being Wikipedia) is both a non sequitur (because it presents alternatives without any assertion that those alternatives are superior) and a ignoratio elenchi (because even if true, it does not challenge the premise that usefulness is a good standard). (Yeah, the essay could probably use some cleanup.) --
Keep Shopping centre seems to be notable (Particually being 1 million sqft in size and in a tourist area_, but some work needs to be done to the article to improve it. As for the unsigned comments by DGG, it's consistantly been accepted that property owner sites are a perfect reliable source for base information on shopping malls which can be appropriatly referenced. This is because the information is used in their day to day business, must remain truthful to attract clients, and is generally speaking included as part of company annual reports and returns of assets. The only other source available is the directories published by the countries BOMA affiliates, who generally have to source this information from the centres anyway. Thewinchester(talk)12:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And with a few clicks of the mouse and some magic, we now have a well-structured stub article just crying out for someone with BOMA, Factiva or LexisNexis access to do some additional research on the centre and improve it's history and development sections. Thewinchester(talk)13:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A super-regional mall has generally been found to be notable in previous AFDs. Still could use independent references to show its importance. Edison20:37, 6 August 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.