Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewPark 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 delete. --Core desat 03:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NewPark Mall

Do individual malls that are not otherwise notable meet WP:N? I wasn't aware that they did. Thoughts? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To answer the question, no. Oldest, yes; biggest, yes; otherwise significant, yes. But yer bog-standard mall, no. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just a mall, nothing special. NN. - Rjd0060 01:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like every other mall. Verifiable? Yes, but I wouldn't call it notable. However, this mall is probably better known then some of the bands we include. The thing is, it's just a mall. I can't really see people looking for this information. There's nothing to say about it (besides what belongs in a directory). Personally, I think we rely on WP:N too much for grounds for deletion. Notability is becoming less an issue as the internet grows, as more data is retained, as more is written, documented, recorded, whatever... the easier it will be to provide sources (or "notes" as in notability). I think in cases like this, instead of WP:N, it really comes down to WP:NOT#INFO, or better yet, common sense. Rocket000 02:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And what's with all these malls being nominated? Yesterday we had: Sierra Vista Mall, International Marketplace, Boulevard Mall, and Post Oak Mall. I just discovered we have a WikiProject Shopping Centers, so I let 'em know about these. Rocket000 02:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heh. Sounds like you have a bone to pick at the village pump ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable mall. i ^said 02:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, though a certain Wikipedian used to hang out there, but that doesn't make it notable.--Sethacus 02:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable. Ridernyc 02:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiPolicy#Notability --Victor falk 03:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources to show the mall is notable: [1], [2],[3],[4], [5], [6], [7],

~~[8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Tim Q. Wells 04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

How do a bunch of maps and tourist info sites prove notabilty. I can pick any random thing in any city and find it listed on map sites. It's mall, is the largest, is it the best, is there anything unique about, no it's a mall.Ridernyc 04:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait wait, I take back what I said I missed the article that explains that they have Santa Claus there at Christmas time. Ridernyc 04:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, they are fairly bad links except maybe [13], [14], and [15] but that probably shouldn't establish notability. And, of course, that Santa Claus link was over-the-top. I remember seeing it but not actually posting it. Tim Q. Wells 06:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim, but with articles like this, it's not simply about verifiability, it's about Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. Now this article is not in any specifically stated violation of that, but I believe it's in violation, generally speaking, of the spirit of the policy. This may be arguable, which is fine, but I haven't heard one ~~good~~ reason why we should keep the article. (I listen to logic over policies) Oh, and be nice, Ridernyc :) Rocket000 06:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just adding a bit of sarcasm to point out that the exact same mall exists in every city. In fact where I live in Orlando I have about 15 malls like this. Also the 3 articles still being held up to prove notability still fall short in my eyes. First one is basically a directory listing. Other 2 are press releases about a theater being built. My main point is this, why is this mall any different then the 1000's of other malls in the country. A simple news story about the new Sears will not show thatRidernyc 06:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. :) I wasn't arguing with you. I voted "delete" too. Rocket000 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. It's a mall. Just a normal mall. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - these articles are important, and notability is inherent. Shopping malls are cultural touchstones; the articles should be developed, not culled. 139.48.81.98 15:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and if there were sources establishing this mall as a touchstone, then there might be a claim to notability. But so far, the sources around don't seem to really suggest that. (Unless you're proposing that all malls should be speedy kept -- in that case I would suggest that you'd be going against consensus.) Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant nontrivial coverage has been established. Kappa 16:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where? Ridernyc 17:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 18:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ff m 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Notability is derived from Economic Impact to the local community. And I do agree with User:Rocket000, it seems as though there is some WP:Pointy nominations going on with all the Shopping Centres lately. My argument is the same in ALL these cases. A shopping Centre provides a staggering economic impact in initial construction, overall ownership, store ownerships, employment(onsite and offsite), "state" taxes, hydro, the list is long. The impact is long term, during contruction, lifecycle, demise, and historicly. WP:Corp allows for an organizations Economic Impact to be the cause of notability. How do Shopping Centres not qualify under this guideline? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see my reply to that argument: [16]--Victor falk 05:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how a Shopping Mall is not an organization. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate mindless wp:policyciting, but since you up wp:corp in sunset mall, let's do it: "Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies." Emphasis added. --Victor falk 06:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cites have, and will continue to be, provided as they are found. Please, on either conversation, explain your reasoning for why a Shopping Centre is not an organization, and thus entitled to use that guideline. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A mall is an organisation, I wouldn't dream of saying otherwise. I suggest we quit this discussion about malls in general, as to spend the time searching for sources establishing the notability of newpark and sunset mall instead. That should be of concern to you as none have been provided that meet standards for inclusion so far--Victor falk 07:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it telling about NewPark Mall's non-notability that people wanting to keep this mall argue upon wether malls in general are notable, and say nothing specific about this particular one--Victor falk 06:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a super regional mall. Vegaswikian 23:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This mall has got escalators, elevators, a food court and a lottery kiosk, but this is not evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 09:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vegaswikian and Kappa. Rray 18:45, 13 October 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.