Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Terminal Mall

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The result was nomination withdrawn, no current votes to delete. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Terminal Mall

I nominated this article for deletion because other than one single third-party source, it doesn't seem notable and if other similar mall articles have been deleted in the past, why should this one stay?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~NeonFire372~ (talk • contribs) Edit: Can you withdraw a AfD? I've actually changed my mind...— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~NeonFire372~ (talk • contribs)

strong keep - this area of Brooklyn is undergoing rapid and contentious change/urban redevelopment, this urban "mall" is part of that process. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This nom was improperly formatted and unfinished (no header, no sig, wasn't listed in the log). I fixed all that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, nominator's reasons aren't terribly convincing, but the lack of sources has me believing that this is indeed a non-notable mall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, who added references to the article when I wasn't looking?... Seriously though, it does seem to meet WP:RS and WP:V now, and as proven by other users below, more sources do exist. Possible snowball keep? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the nominator using a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST argument ? That is the flip side of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is not a good basis to argue for deletion. I see 2 NYTimes and 1 brooklynpapers.com, that gets it past WP:RS and WP:V in my mind. Being a keystone in ATURA gives it Notability. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced, pictured, topic at least as good as some of are other mall articles. Mbisanz (talk) 08:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the article could certainly be further developed, what is here is well referenced and meets WP:N / WP:RS.Ga rr ie 11:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep – Has several articles in the New York Times alone with one shown here [1]. Additional sources from reliable and verifiable sources as shown here [2] Shoessss | Chat 14:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, could I reccomend that before people nominate soemthing for AfD they search the Google News archive for the topic under different spellings and so on? Lobojo (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a busy place, I go there all the time. -- Dougie WII (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the New York Times coverage and other references. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (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.