Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton Mall (3rd 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 Never mind, eastmain bailed me out again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Mall

I AfD'ed this back in '07 because I couldn't find any sources. The page was later recreated in a nonsensical form, which I rewrote after a hastily withdrawn second afd. At the time, I found only one major source (a now-deleted news article that gave a lot of info on the mall). That source was strong enough for me to give this the benefit of the doubt at first. Well, now, there's no substantial coverage to be found anywhere, so I say it's time to delete it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a mirror of the Lansing State Journal article at Archive.org and added it as a reference. See http://web.archive.org/web/20040813174541/http://www.lsj.com/news/local/040717_brighton_mall_3b.html A print-only reference is a perfectly valid one. If a reference is no longer available online, just delete the URL. --Eastmain (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, that's the only substantial source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more coverage from the Detroit News. And perhaps there is further coverage in reliable sources that are not available online. --Eastmain (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per articles added by Eastmain. the Detroit News and Lansing State Journal articles are beyond the scope of "trivial" and are reliable sources. And Ten Pound Hammer, just because a url of a substantial source is no longer working doesn't mean that source doesn't exist any more. Print sources are just as valid. --Oakshade (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2008 (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.