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 delete. Kurykh 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, there is no information to suggest that this mall is in any way notable. Lacks sourcing, too.
ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete A "deadmall" site claims
[1] 480,000 sq ft, so regional. Went belly up in about 20 years, then demolished and redeveloped into a power center. Nothing special about it, non-blog sources seem lacking.
Edison 21:20, 15 August 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.
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 delete. Kurykh 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, there is no information to suggest that this mall is in any way notable. Lacks sourcing, too.
ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete A "deadmall" site claims
[1] 480,000 sq ft, so regional. Went belly up in about 20 years, then demolished and redeveloped into a power center. Nothing special about it, non-blog sources seem lacking.
Edison 21:20, 15 August 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.