Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Shopping malls: Difference between revisions
Listing Skyline Mall |
m Archiving closed debates |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pentagon Row}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pentagon Row}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Forum on Peachtree Parkway}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Forum on Peachtree Parkway}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avenue West Cobb}} |
|||
<!--''no open mall-related [[AfD]]'s''--> |
<!--''no open mall-related [[AfD]]'s''--> |
Revision as of 18:13, 12 October 2008
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Malls. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Shopping malls|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Malls.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Purge page cache | watch |
Malls
- 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. Merge discussions, if desired, can continue on the article's talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Skyline Mall
- Skyline Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Utterly unremarkable office building mall. Is any of it still in operation, other than the Target they were putting in last I heard? —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak neutral. I did find this substantial source which documents the replacement of the whole mall with a Target store (there's your answer), but otherwise I'm finding nearly bupkis. If the towers had a page I'd suggest a merge to their page, but I don't know if said towers are notable enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:40, 11 October 2008 (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 • HELP) 00:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weakest of keeps I was hoping there was a policy to offer some guidance, you know, like a WP:MALL. Of course there is, and it was abandoned because they couldn't reach a concensus. I see over 2500 ghits for it, which doesn't mean much by itself. I lean to keep only because there isn't a real policy to guide me on why it should be deleted, and it is pretty hard to apply general notability here. My guess is that since it is 31 years old, something interesting can probably be dug up about it. I did find one article from [1] that tells the whole story pretty well, better than the article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to weak keep. I've done a slight WP:HEY job on the article, mainly with the one source that I found. There are a couple less significant hits on Google News, so I say it's salvageable, if not by much. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to Falls Church, Virginia. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:35, 16 October 2008 (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. A good discussion that, in the end, had no !votes to keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pentagon Centre
- Pentagon Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable shopping mall. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel this shopping center is notable enough since it is adjacent to a very well-known mall, Fashion Centre at Pentagon City, is featured in its article, and would not fit within the article for Fashion Centre. Regardless, most of the shopping centers listed under Template:DC Malls are not notable. --Old Guard (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the theory of "six degrees of separation", if everything next to something notable or mentioned in an article about something notable is considered inherently notable as a result, then everything would be notable. Then nothing would be. The argument that (something else) is an article and isn't notable is irrelevant, because if they aren't, then they're subject to deletion as well.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A mall is a mall is a mall... Would anyone care to dig through these sources [2][3][4] to establish some special notability? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I frequent these malls, and I can imagine that Pentagon Row, the other mall that I flagged at the same time as this one, might have garnered an award, as one of the newer livable smart-growth outdoor malls with consolidated residential space; I'll take a look. But this one? It's a nondescript building with a homely interior with a CostCo, a Marshall's, a Linens and Things, a Best Buy, a Borders, a Chevy's, and (surprise!) a Starbucks. No way there's anything remarkable about it.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying you flagged Pentagon Row for deletion and will now investigate whether it's notable?--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the dynamic of these discussions is that someone might make a point that someone else hadn't already considered. It hadn't occurred to me before to think of it in terms of having won an award. Originally I'd been thinking in terms of, "Gee, it has a Noodle & Company, a Baja Fresh, a Hallmark store, and a Harris Teeter. How does this distinguish it from 50,000 other shopping malls in this country alone?" In fact, the realization that there might be something I don't know about how shopping malls are judged de facto for notability purposes (not de jure—there is no operative notability policy specifically for shopping malls on Wikipedia at the moment), as well as leaving open the possibility that someone might make some points in favor of keeping the article, is why I didn't just request speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article is not about "a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content", so WP:CSD#A7 wouldn't apply anyways.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A shopping mall isn't an organzation (a company or a segment thereof)?—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's pretty clearly a building or structure.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But despite that Delete this place doesn't meet the notability standard there either. The Pentagon Centre in Chatham,--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC) UK might though...[reply]
- It isn't clear to me. Anyway, note that while the (proposed!) buildings article doesn't mention malls, it mentions two other kinds of places where consumers spend money, and in each of those cases it refers the reader to WP:CORP for the applicable criteria.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "in each of those cases it refers the reader to WP:CORP for the applicable criteria" That's only true for chains and we're talking about shopping malls, not chains of shopping malls. In cases not related to chains it goes back to the same criteria as for other structures.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny, OK, I missed "chain". But then, a chain of hotels or restaurants isn't a building, structure, or landmark, so it's awfully strange that they bothered mentioning them at all. But it doesn't matter: if offered it as the consequence an *even if* the buildings criteria apply. I still don't think of a shopping mall as primarily a building. In fact, in the case of Skyline Mall (discussed in another AfD) it isn't *even* a building, and the same goes for the Crystal City Underground—obviously, since each is just part of a building. Finally, I note again that regardless of whether Wikipedia has yet to complete a policy on malls, what seems obvious to me is that if you can go by the local press, then every single shopping mall on the planet is notable. The whole point of notability criteria is to distinguish those things that are truly worth taking note of from the rest. Any definition of notability for some particular class of things that results in all members of the class being notable is a worthless definition.—Largo Plazo (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "in each of those cases it refers the reader to WP:CORP for the applicable criteria" That's only true for chains and we're talking about shopping malls, not chains of shopping malls. In cases not related to chains it goes back to the same criteria as for other structures.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't clear to me. Anyway, note that while the (proposed!) buildings article doesn't mention malls, it mentions two other kinds of places where consumers spend money, and in each of those cases it refers the reader to WP:CORP for the applicable criteria.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But despite that Delete this place doesn't meet the notability standard there either. The Pentagon Centre in Chatham,--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC) UK might though...[reply]
- No, it's pretty clearly a building or structure.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A shopping mall isn't an organzation (a company or a segment thereof)?—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article is not about "a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content", so WP:CSD#A7 wouldn't apply anyways.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the dynamic of these discussions is that someone might make a point that someone else hadn't already considered. It hadn't occurred to me before to think of it in terms of having won an award. Originally I'd been thinking in terms of, "Gee, it has a Noodle & Company, a Baja Fresh, a Hallmark store, and a Harris Teeter. How does this distinguish it from 50,000 other shopping malls in this country alone?" In fact, the realization that there might be something I don't know about how shopping malls are judged de facto for notability purposes (not de jure—there is no operative notability policy specifically for shopping malls on Wikipedia at the moment), as well as leaving open the possibility that someone might make some points in favor of keeping the article, is why I didn't just request speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying you flagged Pentagon Row for deletion and will now investigate whether it's notable?--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I frequent these malls, and I can imagine that Pentagon Row, the other mall that I flagged at the same time as this one, might have garnered an award, as one of the newer livable smart-growth outdoor malls with consolidated residential space; I'll take a look. But this one? It's a nondescript building with a homely interior with a CostCo, a Marshall's, a Linens and Things, a Best Buy, a Borders, a Chevy's, and (surprise!) a Starbucks. No way there's anything remarkable about it.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel this shopping center is notable enough since it is adjacent to a very well-known mall, Fashion Centre at Pentagon City, is featured in its article, and would not fit within the article for Fashion Centre. Regardless, most of the shopping centers listed under Template:DC Malls are not notable. --Old Guard (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:34, 11 October 2008 (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 • HELP) 00:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 03:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment relisted on the grounds that while there's back and forth, there doesn't appear to be consensus. I think a few extra days could bring consensus, so not closing as a no-con. TravellingCari 03:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree entirely with the nominator on this one. The subject of this unsourced stub doesn't need an article. Delete Master&Expert (Talk) 04:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. See comments above. (I don't think anyone's taking the contrary position.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2008 (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 No consensus, default to keep. The sources added since the beginning of the AfD provide some basis for a claim of notability, and the Google book results listed in this discussion have been added to the talk page for possible expansion later. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pentagon Row
- Pentagon Row (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable shopping mall. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel this shopping center is notable enough since it is adjacent to a very well-known mall, Fashion Centre at Pentagon City, is featured in its article, and would not fit within the article for Fashion Centre. Regardless, most of the shopping centers listed under Template:DC Malls are not notable. --Old Guard (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the theory of "six degrees of separation", if everything next to something notable or mentioned in an article about something notable is considered inherently notable as a result, then everything would be notable. Then nothing would be. The argument that (something else) is an article and isn't notable is irrelevant, because if they aren't, then they're subject to deletion as well.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I dislike articles on shopping malls... as a collection of stores is a colection of stores is a collection of stores... and only have merit to the vendors selling their goods and the customers buying them. If someone cares to use these searches [5][6][7] to establish some kind of notability...? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel this shopping center is notable enough since it is adjacent to a very well-known mall, Fashion Centre at Pentagon City, is featured in its article, and would not fit within the article for Fashion Centre. Regardless, most of the shopping centers listed under Template:DC Malls are not notable. --Old Guard (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Looking at the web page, there is nothing notable about it . Largest store seems to be Bed Bath and Beyond. . If the ice skating rink is notable, which I see no evidence of, then there conceivably could be an article about it. DGG (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Small mixed-use property, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ten Pound Hammer do you mean that there are no sources in the article or that there are no sources available? Because there are sources available. [1], [2], [3]. These Washington Post articles make it sound like a particularly notable development at least regionally.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a Keep by the way.--Samuel J. Howard(talk) 01:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Strong Keep there are a number of references to Pentagon Row in books in architecture. The software breaks a link, but do a google books search for "pentagon row". Indeed, with the multiple book references and the Washington Post articles, the development meets the "being covered by multiple, independent reliable sources" for buildings, structures, and landmarks--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles about local facilities in local papers are a matter of course; they don't establish notability for purposes of this international encyclopedia. Otherwise every independent coffee shop, corner bakery, scout troop, Lions Club chapter, and neighborhood branch library would be notable. I'd at least AfD an article on Murky Coffee, Randolph's bakery, or the Shirlington branch of the Arlington Library.—Largo Plazo (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles about local facilities in local papers do establish that there are sources, contra TenPoundHammer--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They can certainly verify the assertions in an article, but see below re notability.—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot exclude any WP:RS simply based upon its physical location. If we did then every country Article would lose half of their references, because they are located within the mentioned country. A RS is always a RS, no matter where, or how old, it may be. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what you mean. Countries are considered notable as a matter of fact, it seems to me; besides that, there isn't a single country in the world that hasn't been written up in newspapers, travel books, political and economic documents, etc., outside of the respective countries in quantities way beyond what's necessary to establish notability in that manner. Now, back to you: are you going to tell me that if the Sticktown local paper writes up the goings-on in Sticktown Girl Scout Troop 576 every week ("Last week the girls got a tour of the recycling center"), then Sticktown Girl Scout Troop 576 has achieved the kind of notability that makes it an obvious topic of interest in an international encyclopedia?—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What you are refering to is the non-existant Local clause in WP:N Which some believe it to say "If the Reliable Source is to close in proximity to the Article's Subject, reject it". Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A policy-based follow-up so that this isn't just me making an argument: See the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria.—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're looking at the wrong standard. These are not organizations or companies, they're buildings, structures, and landmarks. The rough standard is "being covered by multiple, independent reliable sources."--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand that perspective, but to me a mall is where I go to engage in commerce, not where I go to admire the architecture. Note that this all came about because Old Guard was filling in missing articles from a template grouping Washington-area shopping malls. To me, that's a commercial classification, not an architectural one. Also, note that the buildings article doesn't mention malls, but mentions two other kinds of places where consumers spend money, and in each of those cases it refers the reader to WP:CORP for the applicable criteria. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two cases refer to articles about chains, which are abstract concepts and not physical buildings, thus making the WP:CORP standard appropriate. An article about McDonald's is about the chain, not the building. Similarly, an article about the developers or property managers of Pentagon Row or about one of the chain stores there would properly be judged by WP:CORP, but the structure itself is a structure. If you look at the references in Google Books, it's cited as an example of this sort of project.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand that perspective, but to me a mall is where I go to engage in commerce, not where I go to admire the architecture. Note that this all came about because Old Guard was filling in missing articles from a template grouping Washington-area shopping malls. To me, that's a commercial classification, not an architectural one. Also, note that the buildings article doesn't mention malls, but mentions two other kinds of places where consumers spend money, and in each of those cases it refers the reader to WP:CORP for the applicable criteria. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're looking at the wrong standard. These are not organizations or companies, they're buildings, structures, and landmarks. The rough standard is "being covered by multiple, independent reliable sources."--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what you mean. Countries are considered notable as a matter of fact, it seems to me; besides that, there isn't a single country in the world that hasn't been written up in newspapers, travel books, political and economic documents, etc., outside of the respective countries in quantities way beyond what's necessary to establish notability in that manner. Now, back to you: are you going to tell me that if the Sticktown local paper writes up the goings-on in Sticktown Girl Scout Troop 576 every week ("Last week the girls got a tour of the recycling center"), then Sticktown Girl Scout Troop 576 has achieved the kind of notability that makes it an obvious topic of interest in an international encyclopedia?—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles about local facilities in local papers do establish that there are sources, contra TenPoundHammer--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ten Pound Hammer do you mean that there are no sources in the article or that there are no sources available? Because there are sources available. [1], [2], [3]. These Washington Post articles make it sound like a particularly notable development at least regionally.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2008 (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 • HELP) 00:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - scrapes past WP:N. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Strong Keep - based upon multiple independent sources provided below by Samuel J. Howard Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. Agree that a mall is a business, and needs non-local sources to show notability. Every town has a building that residents love/hate that gets into the local paper, it does not make it architechturally notable.Yobmod (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are non-local sources.
- Professional Real Estate Development, 2nd ed., by Anne B. Frej and Richard B. Peiser, pg. 352 [8]
- The American City: What Works, what Doesn't by Alexander Garvin, Pg 353[9]
- Shopping Environments: Evolution, Planning and Design by pg. 61[10] and 189[11]
- Place Making: Developing Town Centers, Main Streets, and Urban Villages by Charles C. Bohl, Dean Schwanke. (several different pages) [12]
- Urban Land, Vol 62, pg. 104.
- Transit-oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, And Prospects, pg. 106 [13]
- New Urbanism: Comprehensive Report & Best Practices Guide By Robert Steuteville, Philip Langdon (5 page references) [14]
- A reference in New Urban News[15]
- Worthy of the Nation: Washington, DC, from L'Enfant to the National Capital Planning Commission, by United States National Capital Planning Commission, Frederick Albert Gutheim, Laura Bush, Antoinette J. Lee, pg. 382[16]
- Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice by Jill Grant, pg. 92 [17]
- Transforming Suburban Business Districts by A. Geoffrey Booth, Urban Land Institute, pg. 113 [18]
- I've left out the tourist guidebook references that will be able to be used to add more verifiable information to the article, but which aren't as persuasive for notability. (There's also a couple of fiction references.) Also, I'd point out that a structure being "architecturally notable" is not the standard for notability on Wikipedia.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are non-local sources.
- Comment. I agree that of the malls I AfDed the other day, this one has plenty of indications of notability—on account of characteristics that aren't mentioned at all in the article. If the same were true of an article written about a person or a company (say, someone wrote an article about Sarah Palin saying nothing more than that she's a hockey mom from Wasilla, Alaska, who spends a lot of time in Juneau), the article would be subject to speedy deletion unless someone caught it in time and added an indication of what's notable about her (which, by the way, should be at least in the lead sentence per WP:Lead section). So right now the article looks like an article that should be deleted.—Largo Plazo (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Fashion Centre at Pentagon City. I've been there, and I don't think it's very notable. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a completely separate mall. There's no reason why the Fashion Centre article would mention anything about it other than its adjacency.—Largo Plazo (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2008 (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 no consensus. Mr.Z-man 23:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Forum on Peachtree Parkway
- The Forum on Peachtree Parkway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notability. Just an open air mall, no substantial sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 13:11, 7 October 2008 (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 • HELP) 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM that fails WP:CORP. No notability is shown. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- weak keep I dislike seeing articles about shoping malls, as I feel that simply being a set of shops is not notable... but these sources seem have it to pass WP:GNG: [19][20][21][22][23][24]. Sigh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 06:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete: Coverage in several sources has been demonstrated, but significant coverage probably has not (most of the sources are extremely brief, and they do little more than demonstrate that the mall exists)--so I wouldn't say that it necessarily passes WP:GNG. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2008 (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.
Proposed deletions
no articles proposed for deletion at this time