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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tagged for cleanup and context for months with no improvement. Non-notable mall that was torn down a few years ago, fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - unreferenced and nonnotable. It probably wasn't notable even when it existed. Shalom ^Hello 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing to proove this mall was notable when it existed, and now it doesn't exist anymore, it is even less so. Tx17777 18:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless sources can be found that demonstrate notability. Jakew 18:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jakew.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h}
• Delete delete per nom, given the lack of notability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:56, 2 September 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.