Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Shore Square

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. Waggers (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Shore Square

Page makes no claim to notability of this mall. No sources could be found, not even an official website (which is surprising for a mall of this size). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:This is a mall of about 1,000,000 square feet with 4 major anchor tenants. If it doesn't pass the notability test, then I submit that about 75% of the malls that have articles on Wikipedia, listed at List of shopping malls in the United States also would not pass the notability test. The fact that the article is a 2 sentence crappy stub does not automatically make the subject un-notable. How about writing a better article instead? -Fish Man (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to write a better article, but I couldn't find any reliable sources. And so what if other super regional malls have pages?" Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless referenced with evidence of importance by close of debate. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've added some information and more importantly, some references for the basic facts about the mall. While still a stub, now that it is referenced, I think it can stand on its own better until a user with more information can flesh it out further. VerruckteDan (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The TripInfo site doesn't look reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific on your concerns of reliability? If you review this link, it seems to indicate that the data is reviewed for accuracy and that a membership fee is required for a listing. Given the subscription fee, I think its safe to assume that a mall owner/manager would submit accurate data about their facility. VerruckteDan (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means that it is a primary source, not a secondary source which is relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - having investigated this place, I cannot recall ever having found a web of ownerships more complex than this one! (see the goofy Ref. I added to the Article)(ahem they may be goofy ... but they satisfy WP:RS). I for one, would like to see where this trail ends before the Article is decided notable or not, as that complexity alone may proove the Mall notable. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:06, 13 December 2007 (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.