Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonial Promenade Alabaster

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 keep. Content improved; nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Promenade Alabaster

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NN retail property. Despite assertion of a nationally publicized controversy, the only g-hit for any news coverage was related to a shoplifter connected to a meth lab. Fails WP:CORP. Toddst1 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After Eastmain's sleuthing and edits, I think it's worthy of a Keep. Toddst1 (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This isn't the kind of shopping center that would normally be considered notable, and no independent reliable sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from reliable sources. I found the references with a search for "eminent domain" alabaster , because the mall hadn't been officially named at the time. This is a regional mall with a total of about 1 million square feet, which is probably big enough to be considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as references have now been added. Peter E. James (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; nice work by Eastmain. bobrayner (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2011 (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.