Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Oak 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 no consensus, but leaning toward keep, so keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Oak Mall

Royal Oak Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:N and WP:CORP. Jauerback 14:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete no claim to notability--Victor falk 15:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm going to quote a comment from another AfD, while I don't entirely agree with every detail it contains important truths: "All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town squares. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic." Mathmo ^Talk 21:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - You're trying to compare this "mall" to these town squares? Jauerback 13:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yup, currently in the modern world most town squares have little relevance while the mall has become highly significant in the average modern person's life. Mathmo ^Talk 02:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Mathmo ^Talk 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• This is a tough call here, large mall likely notable for the area although very little is provided to proove it. I say NeutralJForget 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Mathmo.-gadfium 05:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Mathmo and JForget. Rebecca 03:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment one of those was a neutral.Garrie 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete While I'm all for shopping centre articles there has to be something to say. There may be something to say about Royal Oak Mall - but nobody has bothered yet. No assertion to notability - really, it has a unique mix of shops - out of 80, 17 of them are national franchises. HOW ORIGINAL? - Not original at all.Garrie 08:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I could not find a statement of retail space or GLA, but 700 parking spaces does not sound very large. Lacks evidence of being a large or important mall. Edison 20:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Is there even anything to merge to the city article? Vegaswikian 01:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Jameeserano 22:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Mathmo, sufficiently notable and much moreso than the average Simpsons episode. Burntsauce 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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.