Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cary Towne Center

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 nomination was delete. - brenneman ^{L} 01:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cary Towne Center

One more NC mall. This one actually links to the website, but a Lexis-Nexis search digs up some local scraps at best. WP:NOT a mall directory. ~ trialsanderrors 23:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no real assertion of notability or uniqueness. Yanksox 23:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Either expand with sufficient info or delete. About 24,300 Ghits.--Jusjih 00:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Decent stub on this mall. --JJay 02:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly makes it decent or worthy of surviving AfD? Yanksox 02:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's a stub with a few good lines including square footage + anchors. I can't see any reason to delete it, nor do I think that the nom has made any case for deletion. --JJay 02:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So, describing the structure of a building assists in notability? I'm sort of confused by how this would assist in making an article instantly notable. If I made a club up and I wrote a well written article about it, it would still be deleted for not being notable. What gives this mall a free pass exactly? Yanksox 03:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused about why you are talking about "notability"...or "notable" articles. If you made up a club and wrote an article about it then the article should get deleted because the club does not exist. It would fail WP:V. This large mall does exist. It has 1m floorspace, large anchors and an important economic regional presence. Which can be confirmed, unlike your imaginary club. Getting back to "notability", please let me know when you can define that "concept" in a satisfactory way to meet the sensibilities of all global users and contributors to this encyclopedia. Until such definition is established, "notability" or lack thereof is merely opinion. --JJay 03:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because something exists does not mean that it is notable, for instance a little league team is not notable. Just because of it's confirmation or existance does not make it notable. WP:NOT covers ALOT of terrority in regards to this article. I think WP:BIO is somewhat of a good measure of how to judge the notability of alot of articles. For instance, has this mall been noted for anything happening in/with it in a non-trival source? Yanksox 03:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you just used the word "notable" or a derivation five times in five lines. That is quite a lot of opinion for a short comment. I shouldn't have to remind you that there is no policy here on notability. There are, though, a few essays on the topic, although these lack any validity whatsoever. Regarding WP:NOT, I do not believe that it covers any ground with regards to this stub. Its examples are quite specific and they do not include malls. WP:Bio is a guideline for people. As I have indicated, I would be quite happy to see this article remain on the site and do not believe that it violates any policies or that there are grounds for deletion. Many of the mall articles become quite informative over time and I think they are a valuable resource. They fit very nicely with our extensive coverage of small towns and regions. Much of that may not be "notable" to you, but is to many, many readers here. I sincerely hope people contribute more mall articles to the point where we can boast encyclopedic coverage of the topic. I also would have no problem with articles on little league teams. Those are some of my opinions. --JJay 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for the word "notable," it just because of the time (EST) and lack of a better word to describe this article. So, by what you are proposing would half of what exists on AfD should be an automatic keep since the concept of notability is ambigious and should not apply to any argument. I'll put what I see in this article as simply as I can. It's an average mall that is typical and unextraordinary, it's not deserving of an encylopedic article since it's not unique or special in anyway. It's just a mall. An encylopedic mall would be the Mall of America. It's not an issue of policy but usefullness and overal value. All, I am asking is really simple: why should this mall remain? It's boderline promotion, nothing makes this mall stick out nor does the mall do anything to assert importance. Articles are speedied for not asserting there importance, that is the basis of CSD. This article is about some kind of a structure that is ununique and has no importance stressed. Yanksox 04:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I'm sure some of the citizens in Cary would as well. Large malls are all unique to their areas and become local and regional landmarks. As far as I'm concerned, they are de facto important, just like schools. That meets my criteria for inclusion. If we delete this based on your argument, the next step would be to delete most of the articles on small towns, since what really makes them so unique? I expect an encyclopedia to have comprehensive coverage, not just the top ten or the largest as you seem to be implying with the Mall of America. From my standpoint, that means all towns, malls and schools (and many, many other things). --JJay 04:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

See, I have an easy lenancy for schools and towns, since 98% if the time, there is something that makes it unique or interesting is listed within the article. When you cut down to the core features of this article you get the follow: this article is about a mall, it has stores. Not exactly shining material or anything that meets any guideline, essay, that I can think of. I also respect your opinion and admire you for having one of the finest debates I've engaged in AfD. Inculsion is a rather strange thing on Wiki, but it is and should be done on a case by case basis. If something can be presented to make it somewhat different, then, well, you have a Wikipedia worthy article. However, if you create something that is generic and not useful, well, you have potentional lly deletable content. Yanksox 04:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep uniqueness is not a factor for inclusion in Wikipedia of which I'm aware - there are many generic articles about things arguably the same. I think large shopping centres should be kept (certainly if high schools can be) by dint of their commercial notability and importance to surrounding areas. Added assertions of notability only help. SM247^{My Talk} 02:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This article does nothing to stress the commerical, social, or anyother importance to any area. It just looks like a typical mall, which stands as normality. By uniqueness, I am really refering to the easiest question to establish notability, "how is the subject different from anything else that is similar to it?" This seems to be a normal, average mall. No assertion of notability and no real reason to exist on Wikipedia. Yanksox 03:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This article fails WP:NOT. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not the Yellow Pages. Srose (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not all malls are notable. By a long sight. --DaveG12345 04:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT the yellow pages, directory, or travel guide. I was just looking for something similar to WP:HOTELS for malls, Talk:List of shopping malls by country has an old discussion, and mentions Cary Towne Center in particular.EricR 06:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I agree that a guideline like Wikipedia:Notability (hotels) would be a useful aid, as several malls have been on afd recently (I've also nominated some). I've been using WP:CORP as the nearest guideline. Inner Earth 15:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice despite and in spite of and to spite prior precedent. All individual retail outlets are NN unless they either occupy notable/historic structures (e.g. The Passage) or are of monumental significance (e.g. same or Mall of America). Otherwise, they are to be listed in the articles of the corporations operating them, if such corporations meet WP:CORP etc. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 04:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. If there is something in the mall that makes it notable, then indicate it in the article. 68.50.203.109 09:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 01:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Nothing here that makes this subject worthy of an article. If there were some reliable sources with more detailed information on the mall I might change my mind, but not until then. --Hetar 02:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As per nomination. Catherine breillat 23:47, 10 July 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.