Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boardman Plaza

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 redirect‎ to Boardman Township, Mahoning County, Ohio. Viable ATD, with the history there for anyone wanting to merge. While this would appear to be a no consensus, the keeps, with the exception of Jahaza are not based in policy. Star Mississippi 02:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boardman Plaza

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP. Rationale from talk page It is a shopping plaza with no major significance and does not come close to anything WP:GNG. Just because of the companies who it does not make it worth an article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Ohio. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no significant widespread coverage of this plaza. A lot of this information is trivia or mundane business operations, and there doesn't appear to be anything discussing its impact or depth in terms of history. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep starting on pg. 95 here[1] there's discussion of the plaza's role in regional development, as an early property in the DeBartolo portfolio, and an early example of the transition to the shopping center in the 1950s. If we don't keep the separate article, it should merge to Boardman Township, Mahoning County, Ohio, where it is mentioned. Jahaza (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is only really a start. I don't think the vast bulk of information in the article is worth merging, however. The NYT article and this book could be worth a mention. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NCORP nor WP:GNG criteria for notability. No inherent notability WP:ORGSIG. It's a run-of-the-mill strip mall, like thousands of others in the U.S. WP:MILL. Netherzone (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly seems run-of-the-mill now, but Google Books search results indicate this one is more significant than most. Peter James (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems run-of-the-mill. CastJared (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't being run of the mill a reason to delete not keep? Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why this is a valid rationale for keeping. Netherzone (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article will cover more coverage. CastJared (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't explain anything about why run of the mill is a reason to keep. Timothytyy (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of coverage, serving our role as social historians. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2023 (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.