Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burlington Center 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 of the debate was all talk and no consensus. — Jun. 15, '06 [22:10] <freak|talk>

[edit] Burlington Center Mall

Non-notable entry about a mall. Delete Yanksox 04:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC) See below for my proposal

• Delete Even if the mall was notable, the article reads just like it was taken from the mall's web site and provides no useful information —Mets501^talk 04:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I live in New Jersey; specifically, I live in the area and I am familiar with the mall. There is nothing particularly notable about it. I am even surprised that it got a wikipedia article, in all honesty. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect without prejudice. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Hobbes. JoshuaZ 06:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, reads like an ad, non-notable mall. --Terence Ong 07:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Why, exactly, are shopping malls not-notable? there are usually important socio-economic centers for a given region, just as high schools are impostant education centers for (smaller) regions. Deletion of such articles has always stuck me as a bit odd, suggesting that Wikipedia is meant to show the sum of human knowledge, except for shopping malls. I totally respect the fact that some feel that they are "nn," but could someone please elaborate why? youngamerican (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep and Redirect to shopping mall per compromise WAY down below. youngamerican (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is meant to show the sum of human knowledge, not details of every single artefact ever created by human civilisation. The concept of shopping malls in general is knowledge, and therefore suitable for an encyclopedia to discuss; individual examples are only suitable material where they are distinguished from other examples. This is exactly the same principle as we apply to humans -- every human is important to his or her own family and friends, but Wikipedia only writes about the ones who are important to entire countries.
    The battle to keep non-notable schools out has been lost due to the large number of immature contributors who are unable to understand what an encyclopedia is. This does not mean we should abandon all semblance of quality control and start admitting articles on individual toenails (except where those toenails have actually affected world history in some way). — Haeleth Talk 16:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "The sum of human knowledge" is a reference to the way in which the Britannica always characterized itself. In that context, it means "learning" or "erudition." it is not a synonym for "information" or "data." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please for the reasons by youngamerican Yuckfoo 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please read WP:NOT and it's clear it falls under promotion. Yanksox 16:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have read it before, and I just re-read the section in question. I agree that the tone is not appropriate, but that should be a matter of cleanup, (with he advert template), and not neccesarily a reason for deletion. The advertising section still does nto address why a mall is not notable. youngamerican (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing distinguishes it from thousands of other malls, therefore it does not belong in an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 16:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some something is "not encyclopedic" if it is one of thousands? How about high schools, radio stations, state highways, or television stations? youngamerican (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is just pure promotion. It's not notable, it's a mall. A place where people gather and do commericalism day after day. If, say, said mall had a mall santa that molested small children and then robbed a jewlry store, prehaps a page is warranted. A radio station might have a cult following, or a high school be notable for strigent academia. Not everything here has a page, and AfD has the purpose of ensuring that pages that shouldn't be here don't exist. The system works, it just needs time. Yanksox 16:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, Yanksox and Haeleth. While it appears that we disagree over whether malls are notable as regional socio-economic centers (even if they are subnational) or not notable as hunks of concrete where people buy stuff, do you agree that there should be some sort of guideline on malls/shopping centers? As it stands now, some malls get deleted while others get kept for indistinguishable reasons. This would give people something to cite when they say nn or notable. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My guideline is rather simple: It has to be notable. I know it sounds vague, but it's the best meter possible for all situations. Thank you for the lively discussion. Yanksox 17:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may borrow from the most immature of reasons given in any debate: "sez you." While I have seen you around and know that you are an intelligent, articulate editor, your gut feeling (or mine, for that matter) isn't really something a pillar on which to prop the project as a whole. Notability should be a consensus-driven thing, not just an opinion. For some issues, I agree that one's gut is the best meter possible, but on the issue of shopping malls, i would like to see an independent yard stick in place, even if it doesn't reflect my opinion on the issue. Also, thank you too for the lively debate. This does not happen nearly enough on AfD. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You actually made my day alot of better, thanks. Well, I know it's a strange issue when dealing w/ notability. However, in the instance of this article all I see is just a list of stores. Again, beating a dead horse, WP:NOT adverts, promotion. It just seems to be a really average mall, nothing special happened in it (which for the mall might be a good thing). According to a search[1], the most notable thing this mall has done is host an event. It's really complicated, but think of it under a different scope. Imagine that someone wrote an article about a McDonalds or Wendys they work at. What makes that chain unique from others? Probably nothing. Yanksox 17:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep wikify and expand. Has potential. THE KING 18:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Generic mall. No published sources for the information in this article are cited, does not currently meet verifiability policy. Does anyone in this discussion know for sure whether it is a Sears or a Montgomery Ward's? Are you certain it is a Chuck E. Cheese and not a Pizza Hut? Has anybody done any fact-checking? Of course not. Why not? Because nobody cares enough about what stores are in this mall to do five minutes' worth of honest research. I could go into that article and make up some plausible-sounding additions off the top of my head of well-known stores that favor mall locations, like Burger King, Radio Shack, and Suncoast Motion Pictures, and nobody would be any the wiser. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. If verifiability can be found, is it still something to be deleted? Or are most malls, by default, nn? I checked out the mall website, and those stores are indeed there. I'm not saying that the article in its present form isn't a steaming pile of you-know-what. I'm eventually going to put together a centralized discussion on malls that, despite my inclusionist leanings on the topic, will take into account the consensus-based notability standards of a cross-section of wikipedians. The Mall of America is, of course, notable, and the abandoned strip mall near your house is nn. I'm trying to delineate the threshold inbetween so future editors can zap the cruft and keep the interesting. So what i am getting at: do you think that malls are default nn unless something notable happens or if it some sort of superlative? youngamerican (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As I have said, I live in the area and know this mall. There is nothing notable about it. There is a Strawbridge's (going to convert to Macys, I believe), Sears, JCPenny, and other stores. This mall is not well known outside of the region, as other editors have demonstrated. No notable event has ever happened there (per above, such as shooting, or something of that nature). Verifiability is not the problem here; the website exists, I am sure newspaper article exists, and I have first hand experience, but that is not what matters. It is NOT notable. It is located in South Jersey, and as much as I hate to say it, South Jersey is as unnotable as it gets. The Cherry Hill Mall, on the other hand, one of the "competing malls" mentioned MAY be notable because it caters to the affluent and Cherry Hill is a well known area even to North Jersey and out-of-staters. The Burlington Center, on the other hand, is not. Any of the information here could probably just as well be in the general Malls article. Having said that, I do believe this article was created in good faith, but listing every mall in America is unproductive. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 23:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. After a fair bit of research, it appears that this mall actually is notable to the community it serves, as it is frequently referenced as a landmark for directions and such, and I also found it unusually noteworthy that there is a ministry on the premises, as noted by the Courier Post. [2] [3] Silensor 00:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem with this, now, is if this mallministry is notable, considering that it is only located in the Burlington Center. No one doubts that the mall is notable to the people it serves, but that is not the criteria for inclusion into wikipedia. If that was the case, then this would be my personal webspace, since everything would be notable to me Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the article does not assert notability.Aguerriero (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  Keep and redirect per compromise below. Aguerriero (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep in the hope that all malls will have articles. These are "notable" local landmarks. --SPUI (T - C) 18:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I do add malls, but they do need some reason for inclusion. Adding your average local shopping mall is not a good direction to take. Likewise if something is used as a way point in providing directions does not make it notable, just noticable. Since all chuches are not notable, the fact that it houses a church kind of says it is not notable. For the record, the latest trend in the west seems to be chuches buying malls and using the rent as income for the church. Do we need to add all of these mall based chuches and the malls they own? Vegaswikian 22:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but definitely needs cleanup. An enclosed shopping mall is a landmark in the locality where it is situated. The claim of NN for a building or structure essentially means that virtually all building and structure articles should be AFD as well. --Shuki 22:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't follow the rationale behind this. Are we looking at the same mall and article? This is promotion in my opinion. I see no merit for this article to remain. Yanksox 22:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the user is saying that some Wikipedians consider verifiable malls to be notable by default as regional socio-economic centers. As far as this article being "promotion," that is grounds for cleanup, not purging, IMHO. youngamerican (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing, there are an extraordinary amount of malls that exist within North America, so for one mall to be considered encylopedic it has to stand up among the rest. Agreed? Well, in this article all this is listed is a description of eateries and big chain stores. There isn't anything exceptional about it, it's just...normal. Also for the comment about being a socio-ecomonic center, that is giving way too much credit for what the establishment is. By using that rationale, I could inculde my barber shop since a great deal of people from the area get hair cut there and there is a monetary transaction. The same could be said of a local McDonalds. It doesn't become an exceptional example if it is one of many. The current article is written like a directory and it can't get better. The only solution would be to elminate it since, it just has no notable whatsoever. This is deletable under, WP:NOT (promotion, advert, indiscrim. list of info. Let's also think: What useful purpose could this article serve? Would it attribute towards anything in the future? Most likely, not. I still urge for deletion unless something notable occurs with/in/to this mall. Yanksox 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How about: move this article to Generic shopping mall and make most descriptions of individual malls redirect to it? You could swap the descriptions of the Burlington Center Mall and the Burlington Mall and I don't believe anyone would be the wiser. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting mall articles that do not show any degree of notability beyond being a regional socio-economic center to shopping mall is not my top choice, but it isn't the worst idea ever. It would pick up googlers and the original text would still be in the history for people to attempt to expand upon if they can assert the extra level of notability that seems to demanded from some on AfD. So basically, I still say keep, but I think a redirect for this and other "generic malls" to shopping malls might be a workable compromise, per my and Dpbsmith's reasoning. youngamerican (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So, your suggesting moving this to a blank article and list what exactly? Yanksox ^(talk) 12:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Im not sure what you mean. I think we were suggesting redirect mall articles to shopping mall unless their is something particularly notable. youngamerican (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm very tired. That's a good idea. I like it. Yanksox ^(talk) 13:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I know how that goes. such redirects will leave past edits intact if someone knows a reason why an article should be expanded (superlatives, notable events, etc). youngamerican (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Indrian 19:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per youngamerican. bbx 07:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note to potential closing admins: There appears to be a last-minute consensus building here. Give us a little bit of time here. Thanks. youngamerican (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Followup: I have notified all parties not on wikibreaks that participated in the discussion of the possible compromise and I request a bit of an extension on this AfD, if possible, in hopes of avoiding another no consensus and in order to maybe set something resembling a precedent. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add to that request, prehaps a three day extension may be in order. Yanksox ^talk 13:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• The Yanksox Plan is quite simply actually, delete redirect to clear out the history. Redirect Yanksox ^(talk) 14:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with the delete part for two reasons. 1)The history will still be there in case someone can show exceptional notability for this mall and can build off of past history and 2) (and more importantly) so we can get a precedent going for speedy redirects for other malls without having to go through process to get the history deleted. youngamerican (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be perfectly happy with a redirect-without-merge. At this point, deleting the history is overkill. I don't think histories should be deleted unless there's some very serious issue with the material in the history along the lines of libellous. In this case, retaining the redirect serves the purpose of leaving a placemarker to show that at some point someone, somewhere wanted an article about the mall, and the history does at least contain the address of the mall and its website. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - the article needs a lot of work, but let's take care of that before any deletion. Alansohn 16:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why it should be kept. To be blunt there is really a complete lack of notability. In fact, recently an editor has been placing what could appear to be joke edits into this article. There is no reason to keep, but I like Youngamerican's suggestion of redirecting. Yanksox ^(talk) 17:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I changed my vote above; redirect isn't a bad idea (I was kind of advocating it up there), but the history is pointless. The official site exists. As it is, the only thing is directions (easily obtained from anywhere), and a generic description (that, in my opinion, isn't even very well written). Delete it, then remake the redirect. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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.