- 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 7-3 keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kingston Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non notable mall, with little to no information actually in the article. No citations or outside links to verify any information provided. Sasquatch4510 (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable mall, no source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Nom, Non-Notable, and not much about the mall itself. Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C)
- Keep. Size is 223,327 sq ft., and it also serves as a transit hub. See http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=931668 ("Transit officials also plan to speed up bus times along Princess Street between the Cataraqui Town Centre and the Kingston Centre during rush hour.") which seems to refer to it more as a transit hub than shopping centre.--Eastmain (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The local daily newspaper, the Kingston Whig-Standard, has covered the Kingston Centre redevelopment story extensively, but hides its archives behind a pay-wall. But to see the headlines, go to http://www.thewhig.com/Archive.aspx and enter "Kingston Centre" in the search box to see headlines like these:
- Mall employees in the dark: Kingston Centre retail workers are wor...
- Kingston Centre has been seniors' gathering place
- Out with the old, in with the new: Wrecking ball hangs over Kingst...
- Kingston Centre home of new bus terminal: Set to open Aug. 2
- Kingston Centre controversy: As owner of mall, Loblaws has right t...
--Eastmain (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. iMatthew 2008 11:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This shopping centre site is under development, just like the article. It's geographic location, as a hub within the city, is what gives it importance beyond its current size. Let's go shopping! -Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have received only local coverage if at all, no notability asserted. Just because it's a community hub doesn't mean it's notable -- malls are meant to be community hubs, that's part of the reason why they're built. My local mall was most certainly intended as a community hub, even though a.) it's down to about 15 stores, and b.) it's smaller than most Wal-Mart stores. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Weak keep per addition of sources; barely asserts notability but it works. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a fairly large city, and many people seem to go there every, some for travel, just like Gloucester Road, which is notable. Basketball110 03:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That basically boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The main argument here seems to be that no reliable sources exist to verify the info in the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Whig Standard info sufficient.
- Also, comment: the length of an article is not necessarily relevant to any notability claim. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is in significant need of expansion but should cover more than 50 years of history for the mall on that site. Notability established but a rewrite is strongly called for. - Dravecky (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Whig articles plus already included sources are enough non-trivial coverage to establish notability, and I would assume that this new transit center will be included in this article. Joshdboz (talk) 13:15, 30 March 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.