Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mall at Short Hills

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 - crz crztalk 20:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Mall at Short Hills

The Mall at Short Hills (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable mall. I don't think there's criteria for a mall being notable, but nothing I can think of applying makes me think this article should stay here. I asked for an assertion of notability (in response to a plea to not delete the article, in fact) on the talk page, but nothing happened. I don't think the building is architecturally special, a trend-setter in any way, or anyhting else that makes is stick out among the zillions of other shopping centers in the US. Mikeblas 05:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy G11, store list gives very promotional tone, else delete as non-notable shopping mall. Seraphimblade 05:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per above. MER-C 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Very weak keep and clean up. As malls go, this one is fairly notable as a major upscale shopping center for people who are too snobby to mingle with the masses can't be bothered going into NYC. Opabinia regalis 05:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep due to precedents involving other malls. This is one of the larger malls in New Jersey (see Shopping malls in New Jersey) -- not the largest, but Wikipedia has articles about numerous malls smaller than this one. --Metropolitan90 05:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Question. How do we know those other articles shouldn't be deleted, too? After all, we can't delete every undesirable article with one single AfD. -- Mikeblas 15:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some references, including an article from the New York Times. The mall differs from most other malls because it successfully targets the high end of the market. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I will agree with Seraphimblade that the tone can be more encyclopedic and I've never appreciated the store directories in mall articles. However, it is one of the largest in New Jersey, a state that has made many major advances in the field, to our everlasting detriment. The sourced material added to the article demonstrates notability. Alansohn 06:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (Disclosure: I live about six-eight miles from this mall, but I never go to it, because I'm not made of money. My keep !vote is based on personal knowledge, even though I don't actually like the mall in question.) Short Hills Mall is, as I see it, highly notable as far as malls go. It's a mall for (generally) rich people in one of the richest towns in the country. The square footage of the mall is gigantic, as is the sheer number of stores. I know people who have gone out of their way on trips to NYC so they could stop at the Short Hills Mall. This isn't the most convincing (or rational) argument ever, but that's where I stand. I did a tiny bit of poking around, and "The Mall at Short Hills" gets 14 Google News hits (most, such as this one, on an experimental members' lounge American Express has just installed in the mall) and 25,000 Google hits, including 658 uniques out of the first 1,000. -- Kicking222 06:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE We have articles on malls now? I thought this was an encyclopedia. Well, I gotta go write an article on the leftovers in my fridge now and see how many spoiled foods in there have articles I can link to. MiracleMat 10:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is sourced, it's verifiable and it's encyclopedic. We don't just delete articles using "I can't believe we have an article on X", we refer to Wikipedia policies. If you can get The New York Times to write a few articles over a period of decades on your refrigerator detritus and you too could make an excellent case for retention. If you could point to a policy or a guideline that this article violates I'd be more than happy to emend the article or update my vote. Alansohn 15:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per verified claim of notability. P.S. we need a standard for which malls are notable. Clearly the neighborhood strip mall isn't. Clearly some malls are. I wish we could just cite a bright-line standard. Someone please delete the store list. I expect to see a "You are here" arrow. If there are excessivle promotional or POV parts, they can be edited out.Edison 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't necessarily agree with deleting the store list (or, at least, not the entire list) for this nor any other mall. I think a store list helps to identify a mall; after all, a mall is just a bunch of stores. Perhaps narrowing down the list to only the most notable stores, or only stores with WP articles, would be a better idea. -- Kicking222 21:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's actually not "clear" to me that some malls are notable. I'm not sure how a particular JC Pennys store is any more or less notable than any of hundreds of other JC Pennnys. The building itself? Maybe for its architecture or history. Otherwise, certainly not notable. -- Mikeblas 22:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, referenced, etc... --- RockMFR 19:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep and clean up per Opabinia regalis. The claims to notability seem borderline but plausible. The references are good, albeit limited. I thought about trying to apply WP:CORP (which it would probably fail), but the article is really about the mall, not the company that owns the mall. I suspect that malls, in general, should probably be considered a form of landmark (landmarks are often privately owned), and while we don't have any specific guidelines for notability of landmarks that I've seen, I think the general notability guidelines about independent non-trivial reliable source coverage may be sufficient, and by that measure, this may just barely squeeze by. Xtifr _tälk 02:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Stong Keep. I thought the point of Wikipedia was to democratize the whole encyclopedia experience so articles exactly like one on (what very possibly may be a bland) New Jersey mall are available. The arguments for "delete" seem to reek of condescension, and this is the very reason why "everyday" people avoid encyclopedias....because they are not relevant to their everyday lives. Removing articles simply because SOME people deem their subjects "non-noteworthy" means fewer people will use, contribute and care about Wikipedia and also creates a slippery slope where noteworthiness is subject to the judgement of a select few. What's notable to some may not be notable to others. whoasuckaa 11:54, 24 November 2006 (EST)
• Keep. There are 32 malls in New Jersey with wikipedia pages. Why not delete all of them? We don't delete them because this is supposed to be an encyclopia of as much information as possible. The Mall at Short Hills attracts over a million shoppers year-round, so I am positive that people have gone on Wikipedia and looked up this mall to find out more about it. It truly does not make any sense to delete this article, other than one person's opinion that it is not note-worthy. prepper2 2:57, 25 November 2006 (EST)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:12, 25 November 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.