Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacDade Mall (second nomination)

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 Delete, prehaps one day it'll be notable. Yanksox 02:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacDade Mall

A keep closure for this article at its previous AfD was overturned by DRV as improper. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 10:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while it might possibly be notable in the local area this does not merit it a Wikipedia article. The article is also incredibly poorly written with many unsourced statements and even self-contradictorary paragraphs, e.g. "In 1995, the premiere store was a happening joint called "The De-Lousing Factory". It closed in June of 1977 after an 8 year-old boy was killed underneath the escalator." As it previously mentions it has only one storey, this makes me think this could be entirely made up. Thryduulf 11:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It fails to meet Wikipedia's recommended inclusion criteria. The links in the article and the link provided in the prior AFD discussion do confirm the existance of the Mall but all were the equivalent of minor stories in the business section of a local paper - not the kind of "multiple, independent coverage" that we normally expect. Lots of companies go out of business every year. There is nothing special about this one. Rossami (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A local newspaper's articles constitute independent coverage. There is a place in Wikipedia for notable failures, which includes this mall. --TruthbringerToronto (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) 12:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Local suburban newspapers really have nothing to say that is worthwhile. When you are in high school, you will see guys get in the local newspaper for coming first in the under-10 football competition or because they won some Freshman poetry competition in their local village etc. As was pointed out in the DRV, the newspaper had a very small circulation, less than the average spamvertisement by you rlocal member of congress/parliament who has 100,000+ constituents and uses his spamvertisement newspaper to plug local butchers who do fundraising for him.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I realize there is a trend of late, which includes some AfD precedent, to include articles on all shopping malls regardless of notability, but I disagree with that. A mall, like any other business, should meet one of the three notability criteria set forth in WP:CORP. This one clearly does not, and because of that insufficient notability, virtually none of the details in this article could ever be properly verified per WP:V. --Satori Son 12:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially Satori. -- Kicking222 12:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:CORP as the nominator of the first AfD and the editor who brought the subject to DRV. Erechtheus 15:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Bwithh 15:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete malls aren't inherently notable, and this article doesn't do anything to establish notability. ~ trialsanderrors 16:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:CORP says: "A company or corporation is notable if it meets 'any of the following criteria: 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The article lists multiple non-trivial published works. Therefore, MacDade Mall passes WP:CORP. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The criteria asks for non-trivial published works as references - the articles lacks these (a couple of small mentions of parts of the mall not the mall itself in one larger local newspaper; an article reporting on the mall closure in a small local newspaper (mentioned in the previous afd, not in article); a random Flickr photo account; a non-working link on a model railway hobbyists' website.) Also, even if better sources were found, WP:CORP is still a guideline subject to consensus interpretation. Bwithh 18:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sean Black's previous closure. Passes WP:V. Shopping malls are notable for being municipal landmarks, not corperations. This should not have been listed for deletion. You might as well be applying WP:CORP to a bridge, tower, lighthouse, or architectural feat. — CharlotteWebb 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the mall is notable from some other perspective such as architecture, length, or height, by all means produce appropriate sources saying so. Contrary to the apparent opinion of those with mall fetishes, I am not out to get all malls. Carr Mill Mall is clearly significant for non-WP:CORP reasons, and I have done my bit to improve that article. Similarly, I am considering whether or not Chesterfield County, Virginia's Cloverleaf Mall is notable enough for an article due to the drawn out and well covered dispute over its redevelopment. There is no way that all malls are notable by default. I know of plenty of enclosed malls that should not be listed here. I'll note them here because I don't think that's a violation of WP:POINT: Tazewell Mall, Richlands Mall, Claypool Hill Mall, Mercer Mall, Jasper Mall. Those are just the ones off the top of my head. Erechtheus 19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - this isn't a heritage listed landmark, this is just some block of concrete. As for schools, these usually last a long time and accumulate heritage and a community around them, unlike a convenience store, which has no sentimental value to those who attend it.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also, the previous closure was overturned as improper, so it is not a valid reason to keep. --Satori Son 20:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets content policies. JYolkowski // talk 23:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - no more different than any random shopping mall and this isn't a business directory.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I still see no reason to delete it, but if you want to, go ahead.--SB | T 02:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite TruthbringerToronto's grasping at straws, it does NOT have multiple NON-trivial media coverage. Hell, it barely has multiple TRIVIAL media coverage -- a suburban paper and a local business newspaper, and that's it? --Calton | Talk 07:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I encouraged relisting because of the new source that was found by the last contributor to the prior AFD, which needed evaluation by the community. My opinion is that this doesn't get the article to meet WP:CORP; only one of those sources is about the mall. The one on telemedicine could be a source for that article, which could use sourcing and improvement. The one on the lawsuit couuld be a source for an article about changing patterns of food distribution or on department stores in general. But neither of these are sources about the mall. GRBerry 16:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 22:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: At first, I thought: Why does anyone care about this mall? Then I saw the picture: File:1030051624.jpg. That is a pretty damn cool entrance. However, based on the number of cars outside, I would say it is not notable. But, if we can find a reliable source that that ridiculous entrance actually exists, and is not photoshopped out of a kids cartoon, then the page should definitely remain. NOTE: The article states "The Macdade Mall previously contained 2 indoor water fountains years ago." How many water fountains does it contain now!? —Centrx→talk • 08:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well at least somebody here is thinking in terms other than briefcases and billfolds. If we can keep from calling the Waldenbooks outlet a "cubicle", we might be make some real progress here. — CharlotteWebb 00:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment: Although there doesn't appear to be many cars there, the shadows in that photograph are very long and I suspect it was taken early in the morning, which is not the busiest time of day for even the most notable malls. Thryduulf 17:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arbustoo, GRBerry and Blnguyen. JoshuaZ 13:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.