Deletion of Riverbend Mall

Comment: and a shout into the wind. It's a mall, dead and buried. It wasn't even around for a particularly long time for a mall. It wasn't particularly significant, unless being the only Bon-Ton in Georgia is something that's particularly notable. That said, it lacks |verifiability, which is the final shot to the head of this dead horse. We don't need to mirror deadmalls.com
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: due to the recent rash of "if it exists, we need an article about it" folks showing up at Afd, I raised the question of notability of buildings at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of buildings.  Malls and dorms seem to be the most common buildings that we get articles about.  We have standards for businesses, see .  I don't see how an individual property is more "notable" than the business than owns it, so I don't think being a mall is sufficient reason for inclusion.  There are hundreds of thousands of them, they pretty much all do the same thing.  For this article my opinion is '''delete''' (not that it matters), but I've no prejudice against someone making an article about the kidnapping incident.  That seems to be the most significant thing about this mall
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: as nn and . I think a lot of the defunct mall stuff unnecessarily #Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links.2C images.2C or media files|mirrors http://www.deadmalls.com .  It's possible there are other sources for this article, but actually no sources are identified even though http://www.deadmalls.com/malls/riverbend_mall.html was probably a major one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOT)

Comment: and no doubt a slap on my wrist for daring to expect some kind of quality control to be applied to Wikipedia.    a memorial, and that should apply to buildings even more so than people.  Was the mall notable in its time?  Nope.  Therefore, it is not now.  The arguments to keep this 'article' are exceptionally flimsy (along the lines of 'keep because it should be kept
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: maybe I'm missing something here but if we had a corporation that owned the mall, even owned a few malls we would probably delete it by . So I have trouble understanding how when the malls are separated they should be kept
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)