Deletion of MacDade Mall (second nomination)

Comment: I encouraged relisting because of the new source that was found by the last contributor to the prior AFD, which needed evaluation by the community.  My opinion is that this doesn't get the article to meet ; only one of those sources is ''about'' the mall.  The one on telemedicine could be a source for that article, which could use sourcing and improvement.  The one on the lawsuit couuld be a source for an article about changing patterns of food distribution or on department stores in general.  But neither of these are sources about the mall
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: I realize there is a trend of late, which includes some AfD precedent, to include articles on all shopping malls regardless of notability, but I disagree with that.  A mall, like any other business, should meet one of the three notability criteria set forth in .  This one clearly does not, and because of that insufficient notability, virtually none of the details in this article could ever be properly verified per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:V)

Comment: per Sean Black's previous closure. Passes . Shopping malls are notable for being municipal landmarks, not corperations. This should not have been listed for deletion. You might as well be applying  to a bridge, tower, lighthouse, or architectural feat
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:CORP)

Comment:  says: "A company or corporation is notable if it meets ''''any''' of the following criteria: 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The article lists multiple non-trivial published works. Therefore, MacDade Mall passes 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: as non-notable per  as the nominator of the first AfD and the editor who brought the subject to DRV
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: If the mall is notable from some other perspective such as architecture, length, or height, by all means produce appropriate sources saying so. Contrary to the apparent opinion of those with mall fetishes, I am not out to get all malls. Carr Mill Mall is clearly significant for non- reasons, and I have done my bit to improve that article. Similarly, I am considering whether or not Chesterfield County, Virginia's Cloverleaf Mall is notable enough for an article due to the drawn out and well covered dispute over its redevelopment. There is no way that all malls are notable by default. I know of plenty of enclosed malls that should not be listed here. I'll note them here because I don't think that's a violation of : Tazewell Mall, Richlands Mall, Claypool Hill Mall, Mercer Mall, Jasper Mall. Those are just the ones off the top of my head
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:POINT)

Comment: The criteria asks for '''non-trivial''' published works as references - the articles lacks these (a couple of small mentions of ''parts'' of the mall not the mall itself in one larger local newspaper; an article reporting on the mall closure in a small local newspaper (mentioned in the previous afd, not in article); a random Flickr photo account; a non-working link on a model railway hobbyists' website.)  Also, even if better sources were found,  is still a guideline subject to consensus interpretation
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)