Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlingwood 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlingwood Mall

Entirely NN, as are almost all malls. Also, malls are businesses, and so

• TO BE KEEPED Hey! This one of Ottawa's main shopping centre with over 120 stores and is one of the most senior friendly places across the city. NO IT DEFINITELY STAYS AS AN ARTICLE Also I'm sure there much more smaller malls that have survived deletion --JForget 21:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The above doesn't address the fact that it is, indeed, NN and local in scope. (|-- UlTiMuS 21:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With more than 100 stores it is a fairly major mall in a fairly major city. As to your contention that very few malls deserve articles, precedent would seem to disagree. A look through Category:Shopping malls by country will show that we already have hundreds if not thousands of articles on malls. - SimonP 21:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In keeping with the spirit of
    WP:CORP, however... ^{[Check Google hits]}. Almost all of those hits are local directories and trivial publications. (|-- UlTiMuS 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • A quick search of Canadian newspaper archives finds a couple hundred press stories mentioning the mall. - SimonP 21:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a difference between mentioning something and being about something. Uncle G 21:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Almost all"? What about the ones that aren't? Uncle G 21:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • this seems to be about the shopping centre, for example, and is definitely not a business directory listing. Uncle G 21:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) Keep. The spirit of
  WP:V information; newspaper articles get written about malls all the time. As an example, here is an article about a labour dispute there. Frankly, I'm not at all sure what "not notable" means in terms of shopping malls, but I don't think it would be outrageous if we have articles for each of the ten largest shopping malls in the capital city of Canada. Jkelly 21:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Heh! Beaten! I was just about to point to this. Uncle G 21:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way: The beauty of
    WP:CORP is that you don't have to know what notability means for shopping malls, because you don't judge the notability yourself. You let the world do it. Uncle G 21:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Can we judge shopping malls by whether or not they are traded on a well known index? That doesn't make sense to me. I think the verifiability concern is the one we should be strictest about. Jkelly 21:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why have you completely skipped over the first criterion of
        WP:CORP? Uncle G 21:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Isn't that trying to say the same thing as "we need
          verifiable sources to write an article"? If it isn't, I suspect it should. Jkelly 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Sources aren't verifiable. It is articles that are or are not verifiable. Moreover, your suspicion is wrong. Notability is not verifiability. Verifiability alone gets one the Yellow Pages. Uncle G 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alright, poor wording on my part. Jkelly 03:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per precedent. I think it's funny that we have to verify an entity that can easily be checked with a phone book or directory assistance. I'm not in favor of every two-bit mall getting an article (maybe a 100-store minimum should be instituted) but I can't see why this one doesn't deserve an article any less than the others on the category cited above). 23skidoo 22:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Malls are notable -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not a blanket. Uncle G 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Malls are no less notable than, for instance, high schools. Kirjtc2 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as per precedent; also notable building and one of the oldest such landmarks in a major city (established 50 years ago). Dl2000 22:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: definitely important. — Editor at Large ( talk) 22:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:CORP --Usgnus 00:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per above, appears to be well sourced to boot. RFerreira 07:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think that maintaining such articles as this contribute to Wikipedia's reputation as a whole as an encycolopedia that covers almost anything imaginable. At present this particular article gives a nice concise synopsis of the mall's niche, hours, businesses, bus links, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilles f. pirionne (talk • contribs)

User's 8th edit. Kirjtc2 02:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, large malls are notable. bbx 08:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottawa Bacl-presby 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP What he said (project ottawa) this is a major landmark in the National capital of the second largest country in the world. cmacd 16:09, 1 September 2006 (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.