Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastview Mall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eastview Mall

Just a shopping mall, of which there are hundreds in the United States alone. Nothing in the article indicates any importance that this mall exhibits over any other mall. Also, as a mall is a business, this falls under WP:CORP, which it clearly fails. Was prodded, but the tag was removed. Indrian 15:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Large mall that is (apparently) unique within the Rochester area in that it is able to draw visitors from outside its trade area. Major malls are notable. The article does, however, need a rewrite to look less like an ad. Kirjtc2 19:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently unique? - based on what? Please quote policy/guideline that states major malls are notable.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:LOCAL explicitly states malls as examples of places of local interest that can have articles, if the proper information (history, architectural design, etc) is included. Kirjtc2 16:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes WP:LOCAL does list malls as an example of things known in in a local area but not outside of that area. Further down in the proposal (the second paragraph) it states, "It is the purpose of this guideline to suggest how to apply methods illustrated in existing policies and guidelines to this situation. It is not the purpose of this guideline to create new methods of handling concerns about these articles, or to define additional criteria for inclusion or deletion of these articles." (emphasis mine)--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 18:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Any merge would require that the merging information meet the requirements of policy/guidline to be notable and sourced - this article fails WP:CORP and WP:RS.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Malls are important landmarks, that only exist in relatively small numbers per market. This mall certainly qualifies as any other, thus there would have to be a policy change to warrant deletion of this article. -newkai t-c 17:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a source to the policy (or guideline) that would need to be changed to alow for this to be deleted.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Malls easily meet "Criteria for products and services" on WP:CORP as they are in news all the time. -newkai t-c 15:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, (large) malls are like schools. Notable to local people. Merge per Waluigi300 is also a possibility. bbx 20:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The malls=schools argument is faulty. The reason (although it has not reached consensus) schools are notable is that they are build and operated using public funds; malls are privately funded for the purpose of commerce.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Malls are often built with public tax breaks, and often contain public elements, such as libraries. -newkai t-c 15:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
My take: malls are much more notable than schools because malls serve in many ways as the main attraction in the area and an important piece of the local economy. Schools are neither. --TMF T - C 18:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
What particular part of WP:CORP does this article meet? The three criteria are: 1. multiple non-trivial published works, 2. listed on ranking indices of important companies, and 3. share price is used to calculate stock market indices. None of these three criteria is met.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
You know how often a mall is in the news!? Crime, new stores, expansion plans, etc. -newkai t-c 16:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
First, we are talking about this article specifically, not malls in general. Second, have a look at the article and sow me where there are any multiple non-trivial published works provided and how any of the information in the article is sourced using sources meting WP:RS.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 18:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying the article needs a lack of sources tag. I agree that the article needs some work, but that doesn't warrant deletion. -newkai t-c 00:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:CORP doesn't require the non-trivial published works be cited in the article, merely that they exist. The article can use exclusively trivial published works as sources and not run afoul of our inclusion guidelines. Powers T 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Multiple non-trivial published works. Here's one: [1]. Here's two: [2]. There are even more here, but they're in the paid archives. There's also "Mall expansion signals upscale shift", from the October 31, 2003 edition of the Rochester Business Journal. I could go on. Powers T 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a failure of WP:CORP.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • See above, please. Powers T 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per excellent arguments above. --JJay 16:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please per newkai it meets corp guideline Yuckfoo 18:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If this article on a major mall in not only Rochester, but major on a statewide scale, is deleted, we may as well delete every article relating to a shopping center on Wikipedia. My $.02.--TMF T - C 18:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree that no evidence or assertion has been stated that the mall meets the standards at WP:CORP Tortilla22 00:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • See above, please. Powers T 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiability over notability. --Myles Long 15:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kirjtc2. This recent rash of shopping malls appearing on AFD suggests we need clearer inclusionary guidelines on the subject. Yamaguchi先生 23:32, 18 September 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.