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.
Redirect, as per Brewcrewer. Not sure if it's even notable enough for a section there though. --Amalthea (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Messy, no official site, not notable, not even an anchor list. TheListUpdater (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Article has not yet had time to show its WP:Notability due to the fact that it has not even been on WP for less than a week. Lets give the Article a chance, and see what WP:POTENTIAL it has. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 15:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But does it have POTENTIAL? In a web search, I find one press release [1], a property description [2] and some other page [3] – that's it. --Amalthea (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Article meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia, and it cites adequate references.--Waterblack (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask which references you consider adequate by WP:RS, and how you think that notability requirements are met? I also notice that this is your first contribution as a registered wikipedian, which I find a bit surprising. Please note that this is not a ballot, so you should support your opinion to keep this article with the guidelines agreed upon in Notability ff. --Amalthea (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another average not notable small mall. Fails WP:N. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 24 July 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.