Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amigoland Mall (2nd nomination)

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. Whilst there are reasonable points made by the nominator in favour of deletion and these have not been explicitly refuted, with no other support for deletion I cannot find that there is a consensus to delete. Deletion discussions are not held open indefinitely pending the outcome of a potentially open-ended RFC. But the page may be renominated should the RFC (or indeed any editor) conclude that it is appropriate to do so. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amigoland Mall

Amigoland Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An extinct mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings.   // Timothy :: talk  03:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2008-07 ✓ keep

• Keep per last AFD. The sources in the article establish notability, and I have easily found further sources on newspapers.com. Notability is not temporary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply and Question @TenPoundHammer:: Above you state "The sources in the article establish notability". Which of the above sources establish notability? All I'm seeing is two dead links and an article about the "International Technology, Education and Commerce campus." Also you said you found more sources, but failed to post information about them for verification.   // Timothy :: talk  11:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Large shopping malls are notable. It took seconds to find one article with in-depth coverage [1]. MB 23:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The sources above and in the article are all routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. They do not establish notability. Every mall will have lots of routine coverage because they seek it out as advertising. If this type of coverage makes a mall notable, then every mall will be notable.   // Timothy :: talk  02:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for closer: since there is an RfC currently under discussion at AfD about what is considered proper sourcing for determining mall notabiity, it may be worth holding these open until that is finished. If a close is made, it would be very helpful for the RfC if you could explain how you evaluated the sources in terms of notability, routine, run of the mill coverage, and how you feel voting and !voting influenced this AfD. Thank you,   // Timothy :: talk  09:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @TimothyBlue: You've been told already at WP:AN that there'd be no benefit to keeping AFDs open longer for this purpose. Let the AFDs run their course individually, and then their outcome might shape the RFC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That was the opinion of a single individual, not a consensus. At ANI the consensus in the close was stated, "You and others suggested, reasonably, that some the guidelines for malls should be developed and clarified, and in fact constructive discussion about a potential WP:SNG is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC on shopping malls and notability guidelines.". Let the closer have all of the information and they can decide. There is no hurry to close these only to have them reopened at DR as a result of the RfC.   // Timothy :: talk  20:30, 4 September 2020 (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.