Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salisbury 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 was no consensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salisbury Mall

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Yet another American suburban shopping mall, in this case a failed and probably-to-be-demolished-soon one. Grasping-for-straws references to prop up its notability are one local newspaper article and two links to the local city planning department. I doubt its own neighbors will remember the place in three years. Calton | Talk 04:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Once encyclopedic, always encyclopedic. The fact that this mall may be demolished soon does not detract from the fact that it was once an important retail area where many people were employed. Understanding the rise and fall of shopping malls in an era of widespread car ownership is an important part of economic history, in the same way that the development of electric streetcars meant that downtown department stores could tap a larger geographic catchment area, at the expense of neighborhood merchants. One role that Wikipedia can play is answering a reader's questions about the sort of company where the reader's grandparents worked. Articles about vanished factories, department stores and even malls play a role in answering those questions. In any event, the references meet WP:CORP, but there are a number of ways in which the article could be expanded. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Once encyclopedic, always encyclopedic. It was never encyclopedic to begin with, whatever grasping at straws you do. --Calton | Talk 05:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It appears to be an ordindary and non-notable mall. The article dpesn't even attempt to assert notability. TJ Spyke 05:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not reading any importance here.Luke! 06:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'd be willing to keep most malls. Arguments to delete aren't persuasive. SchmuckyTheCat 06:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keeping a mall just for the sake of keeping it is NOT a valid arguement. It appears you have no arguement for keeping it. TJ Spyke 06:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It doesn't assert notability within the article. GassyGuy 07:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep According to the article this was their very first enclosed climate controlled mall for the Delaware,Maryland,Virginia Tri-State area (Delmarva Peninsula)I think it's an notable article. I remember this mall when my family shopped there while on extended vacation in 1976 and being the ONLY mall within a 100 mile radius at that time, it tends to stick in your mind, so if I remember it after 30 years I am sure that it's neighbors will NOT forget it after 3 years, as the first person who commented on it suggested. It's a part of that area's history, so I say keep it.--Sonicnukleo 12:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sonicnukleo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Wikipedia doesn't operate based upon the personal testimony of editors. See our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If the mall is part of the area's history, as you claim, then it should be possible to cite sources to support that claim. Please cite some history books where we can find this mall recorded in history. Sources are your best argument. Personal testimony is no argument. Uncle G 12:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am from New York City, and I remember this mall as well. My husband and I were vacationing in nearby beach resort Ocean City, Maryland (about 30 miles east of Salisbury,MD) and in 1979 I was very happy to find this mall when I needed to stock up on supplies for my vacation. It was the only indoor mall on Delmarva at the time, actually it was the only indoor mall from 1968-1982, until the Dover Mall in nearby Dover,Delaware opened in 1982. It holds historical importance as far as the economic history of the Delmarva Peninsula is concerned. It would be sad to see the article deleted.--ShellyWindsor 12:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: ShellyWindsor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • See above. Uncle G 12:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am one of those neighbors that will certaintly remember this mall long after it's gone. I live just 4 miles from this site, and it was the very first job I had back in 1970. I won't be forgetting it after 3 years as one person had suggested earlier. It was the largest retail outlet and the largest retail employer in Salisbury from 1968 until the new larger mall opened across town from it in 1990. So I would say being the largest retail employer for 22 years in a 50-100 mile radius is of GREAT historical importance! Keep this artice, please!--AnneHthway 12:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: AnneHthway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • See above. Uncle G 12:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. And nothing notable is ever defended by a sockpuppet army, because it doesn't have to be. Moreschi 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am working on a documentary that focuses on the old Salisbury Mall and I assure you, there is more to this story than an old building on 80 acres of land in some mid-Atlantic town. I would be more than happy to edit the entry and include any and every detail I have been able to dig up in my last 4 months of research. For anyone who doesn't live anywhere near Salisbury, that mall has been the thorn in many people's sides for quite some time, especially since it's now considered an open invite for transiants and crime. I have a vast archive of photos, store listings, Daily Times articles, old ads and everything in between to ad, if need be. Some possible points of interest are that Miss America was on hand at the October 1968 opening. Only 16 stores were ready the day the mall opened. Pennys from the fountain were immediately marked as contributions to a local charity. There was a murder within the mall in the mid-70s and another in the early 90's, the latter seeming to be the beginning of the end for the establishment. The mall is comprised of two parts: the west and east sections. The west was the original and the east was added in 1976. To just drive around the empty parkiing lot (3300+ spaces, FYI) it's such a trip because this mall is literally useless and taking up so much land but the history of it is also very apparent. I am 26, I am fresh from college; this may not seem the most exciting topic in the world, but if a 26 year old can find the time to research and drive 2 hours a weekend to chronicle this old mall, I'm sure someone else will find it interesting, as well.Aside from an article I have contributed to Labelscar.com and a few photos, there is literally NOTHING about this mall online. It would be a disservice to delete this entry, leaving almost nothing for anyone to utilize as a source for information.User: Clauramoist10:25am, October 17, 2006 — Possible single purpose account: Clauramoist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • If there are no sources about this mall, then we cannot have an article. Conversely, to demonstrate that this mall is notable, cite sources to show that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. You say that you have dug up the sources. Please cite them for us. Uncle G 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep while the unsourced personal recollections of Wikipedians may not be enough to determine the content of an article, they are persuasive as to the subjective value of whether an article should be kept. Wikipedia is a worldwide site, and as such, local content will be covered, and in some detail. This information is not always available to the public at large. Thus it's helpful to see the local memories of people who can speak informatively if not authoritatively on a subject, and provide some sense of the value of something. Now whether or not Malls qualify as notable, I don't know, but they're hardly worse than High Schools. Maybe there needs to be a WP:Malls? FrozenPurpleCube 15:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:CORP was already linked to at the top of this discussion, and Notability is not subjective. Notability is not gauged by editors making personal judgements. Indeed, we have no way to know that what is written above even is "local memories". There is a reason that we have a Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Uncle G 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but Notability is absolutely subjective. It's inherent in the concept of the word, there are things we think are more or less important than others. That is why Presidents of the United States is an article while Presidents of my local school is not. You should rewrite your attempt at defining policy to cover that it is less about personal thought and belief versus the feeling of a group's decision. As it stands, you're merely using your own writings to endorse your own position, not represent an accurate portrayal of the situation. Heck, even Jimmy Wales has said notability is subjective. [1]. But hey, I disagree with your attempting to post self-written thoughts as somehow subjectively more important than actual argument anyway. As I've said before, when you post like that, it's not actually encouraging. This doesn't mean I don't think you're well-intentioned, I just think you're doing it poorly. And actually we do have ways of knowing whether something is local memory. It's called looking at resourcs on a local subject. In this case, there are newspaper articles on the mall, all of which are consistent with the statements made here, so I have no reason to doubt them, but will AGF. It's also possible that there are local books on recent history, and I'm sure it would make you happy if they were cited, but as I said, your way of trying to get people to do that, just come across poorly to me. Perhaps it would be better if you restricted yourself to just making the same point once in an AfD instead of replying to everyone on it? Yes, I know you consider it important, but saying it so often in a single AfD diminishes the value of it. FrozenPurpleCube 16:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Wrong. Read what I linked to. Notability is not subjective. Notability is not determined by Wikipedia editors making subjective judgements, no matter what you think about the presidents of your local school.

        And actually we do have ways of knowing whether something is local memory. It's called looking at resourcs on a local subject. — And yet you criticise when someone asks for such sources. Your argument lacks any logic and your position is self-contradictory. If you don't like the fact that we insist upon sources here (and if Argumentum ad Jimbonem is your thing, there's a very strong Argumentum ad Jimbonem for insisting upon sources — see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Further_reading), once again I say that you will not find Wikipedia to be a comfortable place. If an editor dislikes the repeated requesting of sources until they are supplied, the problem lies with the editor, not with the requests. Uncle G 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

        • Actually, I did read what you wrote and the fact of the matter is, I simply do not agree with your opinion, and I stated why. Notability is subjective. You can continue to represent your position the way you want, but I find it unconvincing and unpersuasive. What you're really disagreeing with is the importance of individual opinions as opposed to the group or worldwide opinion. I think rewriting your position statement with that in mind would be more accurate and persuasive. And no, I don't have an inherent problem with asking for sources, merely the occasionally chosen method of doing so. For example, I have a problem with complaining that there are no sources, acting like that there never can be sources, and thus claiming an article is unverifable. A lot of people use the term "unverifiable" when what they really meant to use is "unverified" and that's just bad for Wikipedia. It's annoying. It's also annoying when someone makes the same point several times in the same AfD. It's one thing to be talking with someone, it's another to effectively copy and paste the same information to people who may not even respond to you. I really do hope you recognize that it may not be the best way of doing things, and if not, I'll continue trying to persuade you. FrozenPurpleCube 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Wrong. If one is applying subjective criteria, one is not applying notability criteria. Once again: Read what I linked to. As for your unfounded assumption that people aren't going to respond in discussions (which implies that you have a low opinion of those people, note), I suggest that you pay more attention to what happens when one does not encourage editors, in particular new editors, to focus upon and to cite sources, and contrast that to what happens when one does. I also suggest that you consider that I and other editors have managed to engage novice editors in discussion and in productive work on citing sources here in this very discussion, resulting in improvements to the article since nomination, whereas you have not. Uncle G 12:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Again, I read what you wrote. It wasn't convincing. Sorry, and I'm frankly perplexed that you won't respond to my concerns. Notability is subjective, and what you're talking about is an individual opinion versus a number of people with opinions. I'm also confused as to why you think it's such a negative statement to say that people may not respond to you. That's hardly as negative as you make it out ot be, though honestly I haven't seen responses by most of the people you responded to, or any edits at all, so I'd say it's hardly unfounded. I'd say it's based on pretty solid evidence. But that wasn't even the point anyway, the point was that the methods was not effective, even if the intent was laudable. You can go on and on about encouraging editors, but if you don't recognize that it's important to consider what effect you're having, well, that could have unfortunate results. But really, rewriting that page you're so found of quoting about Notability would be nice. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying you're presenting it poorly. You can do better. FrozenPurpleCube 02:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I've responded. You're, quite simply, wrong. Notability is not subjective.

                the point was that the methods was not effective — Rubbish. I've asked you three times to actually read the explanation of why notability is not subjective. Now I ask you actually read this very discussion. I point out again that I and other editors have managed to engage novice editors in discussion and in productive work on citing sources here in this very discussion, resulting in improvements to the article since nomination, whereas you have not. When it comes to effectiveness of methods, that speaks volumes. Uncle G 10:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

                • No, you haven't responded to what I've said. Sorry. If you had, you'd have said different things, rather than repeat yourself. But hey, you don't want to recognize what I said, I can't make you. And since most of the people you did reply to with your C&P reply haven't made edits, and have been tagged as possible sockpuppets, I don't think you can take any credit for anybody's actions here. The only consistent editor has been involved with this article from the beginning, and was already committed to it. Since they haven't done anything with any other articles, I'm not sure that there's much to take credit for, but if it makes you happy to claim it, go right ahead. But do remember, it's not good to toot your own horn. FrozenPurpleCube 03:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable DCEdwards1966 15:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Valid local history topic. Merchbow 15:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Only if it has already been documented as local history. All that we have so far are personal testimonies and an editor saying that xe intends to create a documentary about the mall. Please cite sources if you wish to demontrate otherwise. Uncle G 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep: Where should these sources be cited? For the moment, the current news on the site can be found in a number of articles:http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=5524676&nav=MXEF http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061013/NEWS01/610130311/1002 http://www.delmarvanow.com/dayinthelife/salisbury/pages/salisburystory2.html http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061015/OPINION01/61015003 I wrote the submission on http://www.labelscar.com. The documentary that I am creating is still in the research stages but it's part of my thesis for graduate school at the University of Delaware. Other articles exist on the malls opening, namely from the Week of October 16, 1968 when the first section of the mall opened and from September 12, 1976 when the second section was opened. How else should I go about providing citations as to the validity of this subject? And I assure you, this is more than just "local memories." The Salisbury Mall is a statement on the fickle nature of commerce and how even a $10 million structure can be rendered obselete. User:clauramoist
  • 'Comment It is not a good idea to publish your email, phone number or address here, because these comments may be picked up by spammers or mirrored on other sites. Maybe the local library or historical society has clippings from papers when the mall was important which could be used to improve the article and establish its former importance. It was kind of early to have left traces findable with Google.Edison 17:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Cite them in the article, since a good article is always a strong argument, in the "references" section if they are references for the article content, in the "further reading" section if they are not, using the conventional citation templates. I've started you off with two. This is exactly the sort of thing that we are looking for. Well done. Uncle G 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, that the text is not available on-line just means that you cannot fill in the URL field of the citation template. A URL is best regarded as a bonus in a citation of a news article. The important parts are the publication in which the article was published, the byline, the title, and the publication date. Verifiability isn't intended to involve FUTON bias. That there's no handy hyperlink to follow just means that a reader wanting to read the source has to consult the publication's public archives, or a library, directly. (Of course, you can always help readers by providing a sentence of potted summary describing what the source has to say about the subject. Indeed, for best results, expand the article using the source.) Uncle G 17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Personal testamonials here cannot establish notability. Multiple nontrivial published sources are needed. The articles cited still just say it is an eyesore and a hazard, has been boarded up 15 years, and should be knocked down and redeveloped. One article says a young person thinks it might have been significant in the past, before his time. Still nothing establishing any notability. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information.Edison 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Personal testimonials by single purpose accounts are not very compelling, but this borderline based on some of the sources that finally have been produced after Uncle G stated exhaustively what was necessary here. I don't subscribe to WP:LOCAL as it is a proposed guideline, but I suppose that if these sources are added to the article it at least meets WP:V and it may be of local importance, though I personally don't see much notability in the "...first enclosed climate controlled mall on the entire Delmarva Peninsula." It would be nice if there were a source that actually validated that this building has any kind of local historical significance, other than a blog, which isn't exactly a reliable source.--Isotope23 17:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• QuestionWhat could be included (aside from articles -- which I will post this evening) here that would validate this building's story beyond just another local mall-turned-dump? I took a class as an undergrad about folklore and the professor always stressed the importance of chronicling the past, especially when its future is in jeopardy. This mall is scheduled to be be razed by January 2007 and while some of you have pontificated the general banality of this subject, none of you, save Uncle G, have offered suggestions on what information could be provided in order for this article to be deemed valid. The novelty of Wikipedia is that it IS a venue for random information. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have been able to have found the original airing date's of "Mama's Family" (the syndicated version), where a crab apple comes from and exactly which Fleer baseball cards are considered worth money, all in one place. User:Clauramoist
  • Don't be disheartened if people express opinions before you supply all of the evidence. This is a discussion, not a vote, and the presentation of additional information can change editors' minds. People here are reasonable, and opinions are not necessarily set in stone. Uncle G 17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• I have been working on research for months now and sadly, most of Salisbury Maryland's local paper is only on Microfilm so what I have is mainly what I have scanned from a second rate source. I will follow your advice and add as much as I have. This really isn't your run-of-the-mill mall. It isn't tucked on some roadside off a busy interstate with weeds growing up around it. It's literally in the middle of this town. There is a huge arena across the street. A major shopping center backs up to its parking lot. It's failure is mildly interesting but it's also relative to the area's commercial history. How much time is given before the article *may* be deleted? User:clauramoist
  • Comment, an AfD usually runs for about 5 days; sometimes longer based on how busy the closing admins are. Personally the thing I'd like to see is some evidence of historical contenxt here. Sources don't necessarily have to be online, citing books and newspapers is perfectly acceptible... you just have to include a bibliography.--Isotope23 18:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been 3 days since you wrote that. Do you have any more sources to add to the article, yet? I've been reserving forming my own opinion pending the sources that you said were forthcoming. Uncle G 10:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia or gradschool-related work. I had to make a choice ........... however, I have included 2 links so far, the first worked, the second from a Washington Post article from 1990 isn't formatting, and I followed the pattern for the previous articles. I have a number of articles from 1968 when it opened, 1976 when it was expanded, 1990 when the new mall opened and 1991 when there was a murder, and I want to make sure I'm doing this properly.User:clauramoist
• Delete per nom. "[T]he first enclosed climate controlled mall on the entire Delmarva Peninsula"? Worst. Assertation. of Notability. EVER! I'm literally falling over laughing from that line! --Aaron 18:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Edison, and Aaron. Agent 86 18:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to meet notability standards JGardner 23:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Truthbringer. Fishboy 10:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Truthbringer.--Davenort77 16:19, 20 October 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.