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.
That is a misreading of the guideline. "Larger shopping malls are often found to be notable. Very small malls, strip malls, and individual shops are generally deleted unless significant sourcing can be found. Size however, does not in and of itself confer notability, nor does it abrogate the requirements set forth in GNG." There has to be coverage independent of the fire. Is there? –
Muboshgu (
talk)
18:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The same as 18,580 sq. metres. Very small. Many shopping mall articles that often survive AfD usually have over 50,000 sqm..
Ajf773 (
talk)
23:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Actually the sourcs say the originla 2-storey buildin was 20,000 sq.m. and it wass upgraded to 4 storeys. So the area woulsd be either 40, 000 or 80,000, sq.m.depending how 20,000 was measured: in one plane or two. So I guess it is borderline. Na it was definitely not a strip mall.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
23:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)reply
merge/redirect no inherent notability beyond the event. Most probably the mall will cease to exist: the owners jailed, the building burned thru; nobody in sound mind will keep the name.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
23:56, 27 March 2018 (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.