Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clementi 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. Nominator has not provided a valid reason for deletion. (Non-admin closure) Till I Go Home (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clementi Mall

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

How does a shopping mall meet notability guidelines? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have thousands of articles on shopping malls. If it meets WP:GNG, that's typically enough.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Default Keep - Is there a rational to go along with this nomination. while not a great Article, there are WP:RS's present. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to upcoming SG Lifestyle Wikia if anything wrong with this article. So far it will merge Lifestyle Wiki (Singapore) that one got useless information and then trying to remove. SG Lifestyle Wikia will have: Cinemas, movies, shopping malls, etc. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK criterion 1: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion". The nomination takes the form of a question, which has been answered. No argument for deletion has been offered. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. The nominator can't be serious. Snowball keep this, per WP:SNOW. Tinton5 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence at all presented for notability of this quite small food-oriented shopping mall. The only notable parts of it already have articles, Clementi Bus Interchange and Clementi MRT Station. It's just a small mall at a transportation center. I think the original nom didn't specify further because he thought it obvious. I consider both references to be essentially press releases. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not a "quite small food-oriented shopping mall." It houses 135 retail outlets, only 16 of which are restaurants and cafes. See the new info I have added to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be plenty of coverage about this relatively new shopping mall. Despite the nominator's not knowing them, I HAVE seen criteria cited here at AfD for shopping malls, which include square footage as well as news coverage; this is a five-story mall with almost 300,000 square feet of retail space. The article as written did not include any of this information; I have added it. I also think we should delete all the detailed charts about how to get there, so that the article can focus on the mall itself. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has secondary sources. Anymore, it seems that malls are notable more often than not. Also, the nominator hasn't really presented a rationale. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and now close, and drinks all around.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reliable sources currently in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page should follow Nex example. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2011 (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.