Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinderella City

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.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella City

Cinderella City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

The mall appears to have a long history, but has been tagged for no references for almost three years. In that amount of time, one would think that something would come up, so this apparently fails

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I just added 3. No other argument for deletion been presented, so I guess this AFD is now moot. Exit2DOS ^• Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cited, obvious and good claims to notability. Rebecca (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Now that refs have been added, that requirement is met and there's a solid basis for expansion and improvement of the article. 17:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.90.87 (talk)
• Strong Keep. The article seems on the right track. MaxForce (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No one ever cares for the mall articles, but sending them to AFD just to dredge up sources is the wrong way to go. This is historical as one of the first dead malls, and sources have been added. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:39, 17 December 2009 (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.