Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alderland Centre

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alderland Centre

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. This is a small commercial office building in Toronto's suburbs. It has a few retail tenants and a small office building. I was only able to locate two secondary sources: [1], [2], and both are trade journals. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable shopping centre (less than 40 stores) and article written more like an advert. Ajf773 (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shopping malls do not all get an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist — to get a Wikipedia article, a shopping mall needs to actually be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. Major facilities like the Eaton Centre and Yorkdale Mall will obviously have that — but a suburban strip mall whose most notable anchor tenant is an IDA drugstore simply will not. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable. It simply reads like a mall directory. None of the external links are actually functional (even after removing the extra "/"). nerdgoonrant (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2016 (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.