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. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails current notability standards and even based on the level of the failed WP:MALL (WP:MALL is just used as a barometer for discussion) Yanksox (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I expanded the article a bit. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I fail to see how the expansion proved it's actual notability. Yanksox (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Nor can I. Mere information about a subject does not make it notable. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I agree with Yanksox. This article fails notability guidelines, even with the expansion. It contains a lot of trivial and uninteresting detail about the mall's doings but there is no indication of why this mall is different from the countless non-notable businesses or shopping areas in the world. Reyk _YO! 05:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- The mall is a significant structure in the City of Kingston and considering that Yansox is not even an administrator, this article is no different than hundreds of other articles on shopping malls. OOODDD (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Excuse me? I used to be an administrator. And my no longer being an admin has no merit here. This is an Ad Hominem attack and it actually stings since it has nothing to do with the argument. I suggest you retract that statement please. Also, my goal is to help slim down the articles that don't merit their own and move it to the town page like it should be. Yanksox (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources provided are insufficient to establish notability. It should be noted that any logged-in Wikipedia editor can nominate an article for deletion; I had been doing so for years before I became an admin. It may also be relevant that User:OOODDD is the editor who created this article, although they did not mention that above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was unable to find any information that would qualify this mall notable. The mall exists, it just doesn't pass the notability requirements for malls. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources are only trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The source I added (Kennedy, Patrick. "Frontenac Mall to get $2 million renovation and facelift", Kingston Whig-Standard, 1987-04-16, p. 1) is not trivial. It's a fairly lengthy article entirely about the mall. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We already have muliple secondary sources which is the definition of notability. A long article entirely about the mall clinches it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, does not. There can and will be many independent sources about certain establishments. An example can be a bar. There are many articles written about a very popular bar near my scchool that Obama drank at when he went to Harvard Law, but it doesn't merit a Wikipedia article for good reason. Just because it's discussed heavily does not mean it warrants its own article. It can merely be condensed and placed on the main relevant page. Yanksox (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what the policy says. Arguments for deletion have to be based on policy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:IAR, Your attitude sounds something surprisingly similar to that of Jonestown. Yanksox (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, only votes for delete are allowed to quote policy now? Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, first off it is never a vote, it's a discussion, so your argument is null in that regard. 85% of the time, it's strictly policy but the rest of the time you need to put on your thinking cap and let common sense dictate. Yanksox (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The front page Kingston Whig-Standard article does seem substantial and it is an independent reliable source, thus this topic passed the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a renovation on a local paper. It's not like it was the cover of the New York Times. Look at the size of the article you cite. I think your logic is slightly flawed for this process. Yanksox (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn mall, and being mentioned in the local newspaper isn't a claim to notability neither. Secret ^account 15:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's far more than a "mention" and local references are not and have never been banned as evidence of notability per WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 18:35, 10 December 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.