Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labrador Mall (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Labrador City. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labrador Mall

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

NN 246,923 sq. ft. mall. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Being the largest mall in a town of 9,354 does not make it notable. Epeefleche (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its the largest mall in Labrador, not just Labrador City.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 29,178-person ~~district~~ northerly "region" of a province? Same point, but thanks for clarifying what seemed to refer to the town. Epeefleche (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that the prior AfD discussion mentioned that, and verified via the sources.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I see you revised the article, which formerly indicated it referred to the town. It might be helpful if you could add an independent ref to support the statement that it refers to "Labrador region", and not Labrador City. It appears that sources sometimes use the phrase "Labrador," without clarifying whether they are referring to the town of 9,354 or the region of 29,178 ... both of which strike me as rather small in a province of half a million people. Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. All of the references are either self-published, or, in the case of the The Aurora article, inconsequential (as per WP:IS NOT ABOUT PARKING LOT TRAFFIC PATTERNS). List of tenant stores and vacant areas are inherently ephemeral, and thus non-notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I can find nothing that would demonstrate the notability of this minor mall. All I can find, in the article and elsewhere, is either not independent or not substantial. Reyk _YO! 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This topic is wp:prominent at Labrador City, so if the topic is found to be non-notable, as indicated by WP:ATD, the remedy is a redirect without deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 15 June 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.