Talk:Grand Cities Mall

message: I disagree that this article should be deleted.  This was the first enclosed shopping mall in the city of Grand Forks (and maybe the entire state of ND?).  Also, it covers over 350,000 square feet, has several anchor stores and around 50 or 60 smaller stores, and has been around for well over thirty years.  I feel that this article already contains much more information than many mall articles.  It even includes a brief history which many mall articles lack.  There is room for some expansion and I will put more work into the article.  Still, just because you haven't heard of this mall, it doesn't mean that it is non-notable or that its article should be deleted. --MatthewUND(talk) 23:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to remove the proposed deletion and prod2 templates, but it is likely that the article will go up for Articles for Deletion in its present state. I would suggest that you review WP:CORP to determine whether you believe that this mall meets this notability guideline. If it does and you can improve the article by establishing the mall's notability using verifiable sources, I'm sure we would all love to see it remain a part of the project. Erechtheus 00:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It id your job to show why it is notable, this article has no sources to show why this mall deserved an article. TJ Spyke 00:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my job to do anything. I think you meant that for the originator of this discussion, though. :) Erechtheus 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is an important one to be included. It details the little-known history of one of the first malls in the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota! --RicKAbbo 20:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion 

message: The notability tag was inappropriately applied to this article, since it raises notability questions concerning: Academics, Biographies, Books, Broadcasting, Corporations, Fiction, Hotels, Music, Numbers, Organizations, Pornographic actors, Software, and Web content -- but not Places, which is what this article is about.  Also, it's just a really confusing tag. Skybum 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The notability tag is most certainly appropriate in this case. It covers corporations, which is inclusive of commercial property such as malls. I'm not planning to replace it because it seems to me that the AfD will resolve the issue one way or the other, but it definitely covers shopping.Erechtheus 02:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see your point; nevertheless, a place may not be particularly notable as a corporation, while still being entirely notable as a place.  I think that one may honestly question whether this mall is notable at all -- but that's not what the tag does: it questions the article's notability in a bunch of highly specific topics, one of which the mall only vaguely fits into, and the rest of which the mall doesn't fit into at all.  So my removal of the tag has less to do with any belief in the mall's notability, than in the fact that the tag is intrinsically confusing, to the point of uselessness.  (Among other things, it implies that if an article isn't notable among that weird collection of categories, then it shouldn't exist at all.)  If you wish to chime in on that account, we let's take it over to Template talk:Notability.  Thanks! Skybum 03:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll decline for the moment, though I have been meaning to get into that discussion. I like the idea of the template, but its current form does leave something to be desired. Erechtheus 03:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed [[Template:notability]] tag