Talk:Promenade Saucon Valley

"Lifestyle center"?

The current version promotes the shopping mall as a "Lifestyle center". Per WP:Promo, I'll switch it back to "shopping center".

"The Promenade Shops at Saucon Valley is a lifestyle center"

"Lifestyle center" is pure puffery, advertising, promotion, and marketing - all of which are specifically forbidden in WP:NOT. Furthermore it is a degradation of the English language - if somebody is going to try to sell me something I want them to be honest enough not to call their store/mall a lifestyle center.

I'll likely list lifestyle center (retail) for deletion when I have the time.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but CNN definitely makes a "lifestyle center" sound distinct from "mall". It's basically an upscale version of it. That being said, we wouldn't want run-down malls calling themselves upscale "lifestyle centers", we should have a strong, independent source anywhere where the label is used. I see that the company running the the location is actually called "Saucon Valley Lifestyle Center LP"[1], so presumably they think of it as a lifestyle center, but we should have a strong independent source assess whether they are or not. CorporateM (Talk) 19:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually somewhat in doubt as to the notability of this mall. I see only one source (a dead link). I'll see if there are others. Coretheapple (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm seeing a lot of publicity, but only on the local level. That doesn't seem sufficient for a Wikipedia article, unless sources with a regional or national audience can be found. Coretheapple (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am unsure how the community views coverage of local issues. A search of the local newspaper returns a decent number of results. Sure its legal dispute is missing from Wikipedia, but so is almost anything else. I imagine a strong, well-sourced article could be created, but then I don't know if stuff like this is of significant interest to an encyclopedia. Probably not a high-priority article, but I don't think it needs to be deleted. CorporateM (Talk) 23:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the practice is on deleting shopping malls or other outfits that do not get coverage outside their immediate area. Surely there are sources, but they tend to be on the "mall lands new shop" order of things. Certainly it can be argued that every small-town shopping center in the country has received local coverage from the preliminary approval stage forward. But do we need articles on such local operations? I don't have an answer to that. Coretheapple (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Further on the above: Given the practice of small-town newspapers to write about everything, accepting coverage from such sources, in determining notability, gives an unfair advantage to small-town shopping malls over big-city neighborhood shopping malls that might not get any coverage written about them at all. That doesn't seem fair. I'd have to do more research to find out what our practice is, but it seems illogical for every small town's mall to have an article because their local newspapers are so starved for real news. Coretheapple (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think being "fair" in the way you describe is really a part of our charter. Some tiny open-source outfits get press coverage and instant Wikipedia articles from enthusiasts, while much larger companies in boring industries that don't make news (construction, manufacturing, etc.) have very little source material to work with. Our job is not to make sure every business has an amount of Wikipedia coverage that corresponds to their size in revenue, but just that any page that does exist is on a subject we can create a meaningful encyclopedic article on using reliable sources. In this case, there are plenty of sources to construct an article from, but I am borderline on the "meaningful" part. I suppose a local may have more interest and the information would be more meaningful from their perspective than it is from mine. CorporateM (Talk) 03:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:AUD is the relevant guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)