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The result was Withdrawn. If I'm gonna bitch about sources, then I might as well check to see if anyone has actually dug up any more for the article, which they have. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unicity Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Only sources are: an article that mentions only in super-extreme passing; a WP:PRIMARY source on the mall's architect; an unreliable looking tourism website; and a WP:ROUTINE coverage of a crime at the mall. None of these meet the usual acceptable coverage for shopping malls. Last AFD closed as "no consensus" after two relists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  There are several links of interest on the Google Books page.  Unicity Mall is listed in the 1996 List of Major Malls.  The 1975 Canadian Geographical Journal shows that this was a "regional mall" with 480,000 sq ft, which establishes that this was a "larger" mall, where WP:OUTCOMES says that larger malls are normally kept.  The mall was torn down, but notability is not temporary.  In the article, I don't see a source for the list of stores in the mall, but that number of stores is consistent with a larger mall.  Like so many articles, this topic would benefit with someone with access to local newspapers.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Unscintillating: So you think the sources are just gonna appear by themselves? The Source Fairy is gonna suddenly make someone randomly have access to local news? Base it on what we can find, not what we might possibly maybe could find. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've shown, using verifiable evidence, that the former mall has a presumption of wp:notability.  If you are saying that the article's WP:V source insufficiency reaches to the level of WP:Deletion policy, then you may have a point, but I don't know.  However, as per [1], admins seem predisposed to avoid deletions or even incubation for articles on wp:notable topics that fail WP:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Unscintillating: So we can build articles out of ghost sources? You know what, I think the local paper wrote a bunch of stuff on my mom back in the day. Clearly she is notable. There's no way to prove it, but ha ha, no way you can't, either. Also, major WP:TLDR in the discussion you linked. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You've been here from before 2008, and WP:N changed in late 2007 so that it is no longer a content guideline that requires sources sufficient to write an article.  What it requires is evidence.  To answer your question, "We want readers to be able to WP:V verify that Wikipedia articles are not just made up."  As for the long link into WT:V, the point remains that the lack of community support for WP:V does not revert WP:N to the days when it was a content guideline.  WP:V itself is a core content policy that requires that article content be verifiable.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Unscintillating: So where are the sources that you're so dead set exist? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:NTEMP. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @VMS Mosaic: Sources. Where are they? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If it once met WP:OUTCOMES for malls, then it will always meet WP:OUTCOMES for malls. VMS Mosaic (talk)

• @VMS Mosaic: That doesn't answer my question. Sources. Now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh. Now!!! You mean right now? This very instant right now? How about tomorrow? Maybe the week after next? Next decade maybe? Right. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per VMS Mosaic and Unscintillating. This was a regional shopping center per the definition here. WP:OUTCOMES applies. Notability is not temporary. Me5000 (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2014 (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.