Wikipedia talk:Notability (shopping centers)

Good start

Good start. This is a growing problem that has needed to be addressed for a while. Denni ^talk 01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A reasonable thought, but why do we need this instead of just continuing to apply WP:CORP. I've always used WP:CORP as my standard for Mall AFDs, and never encountered a problem it didn't cover adequately. Malls are (almost if not always) businesses, so fall within the scope of that guideline. What need is there for an additional guideline? I think this could work as just an essay. GRBerry 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] It is a good start. Some of the wording in the criteria is murky, though. Take criterion 2, for instance: what, exactly, does "significant cultural, social and economic impact on the local and regional market area" mean? I am particularly concerned that "significant economic impact on the local area" might easily be interpreted as a blanket keep. Normal selling operations should not be taken as indicative of notability. And how much depth is "sufficient depth"? That seems pretty subjective. It's probably also worth noting that criterion 4 will practically always be subsumed in criterion 1, as the architecture or history is only notable if there exist independent reliable sources remarking upon it. I'm not sure a guideline separate from WP:CORP is really warranted, in any case; aren't malls businesses? Shimeru 02:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My entire point is that there needs to be an expansion or spin-off of WP:CORP to specifically address this issue, which seems to be a long standing point of contention. Several articles have been deleted which could have been fixed and made acceptable if the right research was done. And why not keep an article on a specific mall if it is indeed culturally, socially, or economically of great significance? Such significance can be proven with secondary sources. My argument, as posted on DRV, VPP and elsewhere over the past 2-3 days has been that several individual malls do possess such significance and deserve coverage on Wikipedia. Not everyone agrees with me; I am trying to move the debate forward.--Msr69er 02:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Shimeru, I would also beg to disagree somewhat with your assertion that "normal selling operations should not be taken as indicative of notability"; if a mall changes the normal selling patterns of a community so much that there is a major demographic shift in the community over time - as has happened numerous times in the Phoenix, AZ area - then that phenomenon IMO is most certainly notable in the direct context of the mall in question, and would establish notability, especially if there were newspaper articles written specifically about the shift, as in, for example, "Metrocenter causes stores along Dunlap Avenue to shut down; neighborhood falling into decline." Often in the Phoenix area when a new mall opens, everyone shops at the new mall and sales tend to fall so precipitiously at older malls there is literally fear among civic leaders that the neighborhood will decline.--Msr69er 02:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that that sort of thing serves to establish any notability beyond a purely local level. Stores open; other stores close. This may be important to the community, but it is not generally important in the larger view. (Bona fide exceptions will have plenty of coverage in reliable sources beyond the purely local.) In such a case, it would be more appropriate to briefly mention the mall and its economic effects at the appropriate locality's article. Encyclopedic notability, in my view, usually suggests a broad impact. Allowing this kind of "local economic impact" to be a keep criterion would mean that this essentially says "keep [practically] all malls." I do not support circumscribing WP:CORP to that extent. I suggest removal of the words "local and" from criterion 2; regional impact (eg., a US state or at least a large segment of one) is a much better argument for notability than local impact. Shimeru 05:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making an excellent start. Note that virtually all of the secondary criteria -- cultural significance and historical or architectural significance -- all really boil down to providing reliable sources, as noted above. Articles about a mall are often available regarding the are retail market, about mall development/expansion plans or unique events taking place at a mall. The Willowbrook Mall (Wayne, New Jersey) includes a reference to a six-day-a-week church ministry office at the mall (closed on Sundays) and details of developments at the mall. Bridgewater Commons is another example. Gross leasable area is the major measurement criteria for malls and should be included as a reference using this link from the International Council of Shopping Centers and searching using the "Major Malls Directory" option which includes malls over 250,000 sq. ft. We could try to come up with a size for notability, but most bigger malls will have independent sources about the mall that should be used. I would also strongly suggest excluding laundry lists store directories, and focus on anchors and other major tenants of note. Alansohn 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the Wiilowbrook article. I counted nine outside credible and verifiable references including the excellent ICSC link. If anyone calls this article improperly sourced, I would immediately disagree. What would also interest me would be further discussion on any impact the mall has had on the local area, i.e., if any other malls or local town "main street" districts were affected as a direct result (similar to the mention of the early Waldenbooks location). Also, do people in the area like to go to this mall rather than, say, Macys Herald Square? In the Western states, malls sucked the life out of downtown retailing districts after the 1960's except for San Francisco and maybe Seattle. This would be a part of the economic and maybe social significance aspect I am referring to.--Msr69er 02:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am delighted to see this draft guideline for malls. In my heart and in my head I know that some malls are notable as the largest, the oldest, the one which established a trend, the one which destroyed the old downtome businesses, etc, but with all the recent deletion debates. I felt the lack of any bright-line standards to cite in Keep of Delete comments. A mall is far more than a corporation, so WP:CORP provides inadequate guidance. A mall is less notable as a CORP and more notable as a venue wherein numerous CORPs try to extract money from the consumers' wallets. It is where many old people hang out during the day and where young people hang out in the evening. A mall may be an important part of the area culture. What I look for here is guidelines to help distinguish between ho-hum neighborhood strip malls and important malls such as Water Tower Place, Mall of America, the one mentioned in the song Valley Girl and others which would cause a reasonable Wikipedia editor to say, "Oh, yeah, I've heard of that mall. I guess it deserves an article," even if they are from the other end of the state or of the country. Maybe it's like when a teacher grades on the curve: pick the malls which would barely qualify for inclusion, then note their annual revenue or leasible square footage and make that the cutoff, absent any overwhelming historical or architectural value. As a first move, I propose 900,000 square feet of leasible space. This is on the basis that the article Shopping mall says "Super-regional malls are usually shopping centers with over 1 million square feet of retail space, and which serve as the dominant shopping venue for the region in which they are located." So this standard should allow articles for regional malls or those close to them in size. This is also about 1/10 of the retail square feet of the largest mall in the world, so it does not seem too restrictive and exclusionary. Edison 05:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Any meat?

There doesn't seem to be much meat to this. To me, it seems just restate what's at User:Uncle G/On notability or Wikipedia:Notability. It lists specific attributes of a mall that may be pivotal in determining notability, but then evades any specific measurable criteria and forwards the reader back to Wikipedia:Notability/UncleG. --Interiot 02:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The essay cited is great, but I would like to see guidelines more specific to malls, since the Uncle G guideline is more general. We have potentially thousands of mall articles, and a specific guideline could help to select the hundreds of truly notable malls for inclusion. Above I have provided a retail square feet proposal. Edison 06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I included at or above "one million square feet of gross leasable area" as a preliminary criterion.--Msr69er 08:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with specifying floor-space as a criterion of notability. Do we use that "gross area" calculation for any other type of entity? Would this mean that any large office building or industrial park would become notable if it met that standard? Sports stadiums, metropolitan parks? No, I think we need to stick with notability as defined by third-party sources, not by measuring physical size. --Elonka 19:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

True. However the current largest one would be notable. As well as the past holders of this title. Vegaswikian 20:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, depending on "largest of what." Largest in a country, probably yes. Largest in a U.S. state, I'm not so sure. Largest in a city, no. --Elonka 05:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If we go this way, we should decide on that the largest is. Apparently the industry includes only gross leasable area and not total square footage. This means that a place like the Mall of America is listed much lower since the space used for the amusement park is not included. It also does not include parking lots which can be a significant area for many malls. Vegaswikian 06:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, this discussion is hugely out of touch with the actual results gotten when articles have been nominated for AfD. Many of the articles nominated by Elonka in recent weeks were kept despite falling well under the million square feet criterion; quite a number were not even the largest in a particular city, but received keep (as opposed to no-consensus) results. As such, there is no basis for setting any guidelines along these lines and claiming any sort of consensus - it is just the opinions of five people who sat around and wrote a draft proposal. Rebecca 09:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most of the articles I nominated for deletion were deleted, they just don't show up in the contrib list anymore. Of the others that went to AfD, in most cases the consensus was to delete, but then midway through the AfD, references were added to show that the mall was genuinely notable, and at that point people started switching from "Delete" to "Keep". I even withdrew one AfD myself, after references were added. But the general consensus, as I view it, is that articles which have no third-party references affirming notability, are not keepable. Articles that do make a case for notability, and include references verifying that notability, are keepable. I've never nominated a mall article for deletion, that already had solid references. --Elonka 10:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're making my point for me - the only reason any of these malls were ever at risk of deletion was not because they were non-notable by any of the standards being discussed here, or because they were in any way close to the significance of the Mall of America, but because they were unreferenced. There was absolutely no consensus for deleting or merging most shopping centre articles, or limiting them to say, the largest in a particular city, let alone country.

As for the articles you didn't take through AfD - you knew full well that there was no consensus for them to be deleted, but kept nominating them in the hope that a couple would slip through, which they inevitably did. Guideline proposals such as this require consensus, however, and AfD, which actually requires consensus, rather than slipping a tag on and finding one agreeable admin, is of vastly more use in determining what there is a consensus for. Rebecca 10:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, the only reason that many mall articles were at risk of deletion, is because they were unreferenced. I scan thousands of new articles each week, usually because they show up at Special:Uncategorizedpages. Along the way, I revert a lot of vandalism, and nominate many articles for deletion -- not just malls. Empty articles, articles about non-notable garage bands, "joke" biographies about non-notable high school students, and spam articles. My definition of "spam" is fairly broad, but generally boils down to, "a short article that seems designed to promote a clearly commercial entity, that does not provide any indication of the notability of that entity, nor any reliable sources which verify said notability." If I see that an article about a commercial entity was created by a new user who's been doing nothing but creating similar unreferenced articles about commercial entities, then that usually tips things over more into the "spam" bucket. My judgement isn't 100% accurate, and I've nominated a few articles which were bounced back as "not a speedy criterion -- try prod or AfD." But overall, most of my {{db}} tags stick, and the link turns to red in my watchlist. Despite your accusations, I have no particular bias against mall articles -- I just hate spam, no matter what subject it's about. If an unreferenced article has a claim of notability (like being the largest mall in a country), I usually don't nominate it for deletion -- instead, I tag it as needing third-party references to confirm the claim. Though if someone just keeps deleting those "references needed" tags, then yes, sometimes the situation will escalate to an AfD. --Elonka 23:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet only one of the articles you deleted (which appeared to be a copyvio from a shopping centre website) looked anything like something with an intent to promote said shopping centre, as opposed to some regular guy's article about it. Most of the articles you deleted were just unreferenced articles on shopping centres you didn't think were notable, which is not spam - there is no promotion element. If you don't think it's notable then get a consensus; trying to drag this stuff under spam is patent abuse of G11. Rebecca 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I really think we should make this a part of WP:LOCAL or maybe WP:ORG; otherwise, we'd be getting an overdose of overly-specific guidelines. (Radiant) 10:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'll second this thought. However it might we better to work out some of the details here and then fold it into WP:LOCAL when there is consensus. There is no need to have a guideline for every specific topic. Vegaswikian 06:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree, and I think that a proposed guideline should not be arbitrarily deleted (merging it would require incorporating it into Local). There should be perhaps a straw poll before any such action is taken, or perhaps it deserves the "MfD" process. Edison 01:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:CHURCH was similarly redirected to WP:LOCAL and a lot of thoughtful comments were lost. WP:LOCAL appears to just say "No, you cannot have an article about your church, mall, etc, unless it meets requirements for multiple independent reference. And even if you find such references, in national mainstream publications they will be belittled as 'just a passing reference,' 'a directory listing,' 'not the primary subject,' 'the article was about a new anchor store and not about the mall,' or 'based on a press release.'" Meanwhile, over half of the articles on Wikipedia lack any references whatsoever. Thus articles about different subjects are held to different standards of notability. Articles about TV shows, and books often reference only the show or book itself, and then spin off into articles about each character or episode. Wikipedia apparently has 493 different articles about Pokemon characters per List of Pokémon by National Pokédex number. [User:Edison|Edison]] 07:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why just malls?

I think it's very appropriate to have somewhat different criteria for malls than for companies, since malls are physical locations, and not just an abstract boardroom somewhere. On the other hand, I'm still not sure that malls need their own notability guidelines. What I'd like to see is a new, more general set of notability guidelines developed for, shall we say, landmarks. Notable locations! This could include malls, churches, sports arenas, maybe parks, campgrounds, and that whole sort of thing. Which I guess sort of means that I oppose this whole proposal. Not on any specific grounds (as its actually a good start), but simply because its scope is too narrow and over-specialized. Note that many notable locations are also commercial ventures, so I think there's plenty of room for developing a broader set of guidelines that cover more than just malls. However, if we're going to have special, separate guidelines just for malls, I'd rather that they be as simple as possible, so that they can more easily be merged with other notable-location guidelines, if a later consensus to merge arises. Xtifr _tälk 10:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• How about WP:LOCAL? (Radiant) 11:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That specifically talks about places "that may be well-known locally, but little-known outside the community in question." I'm thinking more about developing guidelines for places that are known outside of a local community. While I agree that the vast majority of malls should fall under WP:LOCAL (and that's another reason I oppose developing guidelines specifically for malls), there are a few (e.g. the largest mall in the world) that are clearly notable on their own. And I think its worth asking how much outside knowledge of a place is required to escape WP:LOCAL—but I think it should be asked about places in general, not just malls. Xtifr _tälk 12:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CHURCH for ongoing discussion about guidelines for churches. I see no problem with having a free-ranging debate here and arriving at a consensus for what a shopping center, power center, or shopping mall article has to have to be kept. A church has different aspects of notability than a mall, which is in turn different from a monument. Lumping them together invites endless bickering at every deletion debate for each. A shopping mall, the Herman the German monument in New Ulm, Minnesota and the World's largest ball of twine [1] cannot sensibly be judged by the same guideline as the Old North Church in Boston and the Little Brown Church [2] in the vale. Edison 16:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Edison's above statement. I have made at least 2-3 calls in the last week on VPP and DRV for a debate to be opened up on the very validity of individual articles on malls for Wikipedia at all. I continue to maintain that many individual malls carry significance and inherent notability that can be proven with reliable sources. Malls are important subjects for study in a variety of scholarly fields including architecture, economics and the social sciences. Clarification on what makes such articles acceptable (and less likely to be deleted with the speedy or AfD) is sorely needed based on my experience and what I have observed of others' experiences. Applying WP:CORP or WP:LOCAL, in my opinion, is not enough. These debates will continue to crop up unless clarification is given. It makes no difference to me whether or not these guidelines get merged into WP:CORP or WP:LOCAL, but the extra clarification is very much needed IMO. It would save perfectly good articles that would otherwise get deleted and make editors think twice about posting an article that doesn't fit the guidelines.

As I have been dealing with this issue this week, I have noticed among several users what I perceive to be an unfair bias and prejudice against coverage of the shopping mall on Wikipedia, that runs counter IMO to the very spirit of Wikipedia, and that needs to be addressed and challenged. By the way, I am NOT a fan of actually using malls on a personal level. They are crowded and boring to me. But my personal feelings should NEVER get in the way of notability or relevance of any topic on Wikipedia. A topic is relevant if provable even though some may disagree. I am pleased with this debate.--Msr69er 18:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm happy to let discussions go on. However, I strongly disagree that the notability criteria for any of those should be severely different. And if it turns out I'm wrong about some particular class of place, then more specific notability guidelines can be developed for those places later. I am strongly worried about two factors here, though: instruction creep, and inconsistent guidelines. In my opinion, developing separate guidelines for each type of location is what will lead to endless debates. Debates A) about whether certain places really fall under that guideline. A place like Pacific Garden Mall in Santa Cruz, California, for example, is really a street that's been partially "mall-ized". But not completely. Is it enough of a mall to judge by mall guidelines, or is it simply a shopping district? Or Something else? (It's currently referred to as a cultural center. Do we need separate guidelines for "cultural centers"?) Debates B) about places that don't really fit any of the overly-specific guidelines. What about shopping districts or cultural centers? Is that ball of twine a monument, a tourist attraction, a commercial enterprise (which it surely is), or simply a ball of twine? What about a grove of trees that serves as host to major Wiccan gatherings twice a year, at the solstices, but is simply a public park the rest of the year? Should that be judged as a church or a park? And anyway, who can keep up with all these dozens of different guidelines for different classes of location? We already have people confused at AfD discussions with the various different guidelines for different types of people, and there's only a few of those. If we start adding more and more class-specific guidelines, people are simply going to start ignoring them as too hard to keep track of. Something that I think may already be starting to happen. Xtifr _tälk 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. We already have a standard for notability- nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. Yes, details are debatable, but this standards equally applies to any type of thing and avoids the pointless arguments outlined above. Friday (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If articles meet the nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources, even though they are about malls, then why are they being deleted, or at least not being given the chance to be brought up to standard if such sources are lacking? Several articles on individual malls that have been written and edited in good faith, with attempts made for NPOV and encyclopedic tone, are being speedy deleted without any warning or any chance to upgrade, with the reason for the delete being something like, "it's a mall, therefore it's not notable." Unacceptable and prejudicial IMO and against the spirit of Wikipedia as I understand it (WP:NOT#PAPER, WP:BOLD). If we're going to stick to the standards, then please do keep the articles, use AfD to start a discussion, totally refrain from speedy unless unavoidably gross violations of policy are happening, and give the community a chance to verify, establish notability, and resubmit the article. I thought the point was to provide quality articles on a wide variety of subjects that are NPOV, not destroy articles that are useful or could be useful in a wide variety of ways. And before you say WP:NOT#IINFO, the articles I had speedied actually attempt to provide coverage about each mall's relevance to the local and regional market area. In the case of Metrocenter Mall, had I been given the chance to, I could have come up with at least four of five instances of nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources, which I could have used to make the article one that could have been a compelling commentary on the history and current impact of retailing on America's 14th largest metropolitan area. This source information would maybe not be found in master's theses, but I can guarantee you that they can absolutely be found in locally produced news articles. Non-trivial newspaper articles from the popular press count as reliable third-party sources - unless you can show me a rule to the contrary.--Msr69er 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that non-trivial coverage in newspapers should and would qualify a mall (or anything, for that matter) as notable. The problem is, much mall coverage is trivial. For example, many of the cited "sources" in the mall articles simply mentioned the mall as the location where an event (say a shooting) occurred. If it had occurred somewhere else, say a person's home, and that had been mentioned in passing, we certainly wouldn't suddenly consider that location to be notable! The second type of trivial mention frequently cited as a "source" are reprinted press releases and the like. WP:RS speaks specifically to that-not reliable, not notable. If, however, the mall has been the subject of several independently-written newspaper articles specifically about it, that would establish notability. (Of course, coverage in scholarly papers, books, etc., would similarly qualify if its primary subject is the mall, but this is less likely to occur.) Basically-we should have more to write from reliable secondary sources then "Somewhere Mall exists in Sometown, Someplace. Pictures can be taken with Santa Claus between December 15 and December 23. A guy named John Doe got shot there on January 1, 2000." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs).

Besides the bizarre "x numbre of people got shot at the mall" most newspaper articles about malls are in a newspaper of the nearest large city and say "a new Sears store will open soon at the XYZ Mall in ABCville. XYZ is the second largest mall in the area at 1.1 million square feet." So, Notable or Non-notable? Independent source or passing reference?As an engineer, I can deal with "larger or smaller than 1,000,000 square feet." It is harder to deal with "Malls are boring and non-notable." OR with "All malls are notable." Edison 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Msr69er's position and I agree with Edison's critique. The problem is that it is very difficult and time-consuming for people outside a mall's area to verify information (under Wikipedia:Verifiability) that is unlikely to be carried by libraries or public databases outside of that mall's state. For example, Pruneyard Shopping Center (my pet shopping center article) has received extensive nationwide coverage in law reviews, legal magazines, legal newspapers, and legal cases, which can easily be verified by any American lawyer or paralegal with access to LexisNexis or a law library. But San Antonio Shopping Center has received very little press coverage outside of the Los Altos Town Crier, the Mountain View Voice, and the Palo Alto Daily News, all of which are small local papers whose archives are not available at the vast majority of California libraries, and are certainly not available anywhere else in the world.

The way I see it is, if someone really cares about a mall, they will dig up a citation to a relevant nontrivial article in a significant newspaper of record when they draft the article. --Coolcaesar 07:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above two comments. I did not make the statement that "most mall coverage is trivial" and in fact slightly disagree with that assertion (the commenter made that statement below mine without signing). I do agree that users in the local area of a specific mall can do more to provide nontrivial sources than users in other locales. I intend to do in-person library research on the Phoenix Metrocenter and some of the other Phoenix-area malls as I get time. However, be aware that, in some cases, sufficient nontrivial information can be found using Internet sources including the [Newspaper Archive], a fee-based source which provides PDF copies of microfilmed newspaper pages (and can be accessed at no charge through the websites of local libraries to cardholders, as is the case here in Phoenix). I used this to provide some verification on El Cerrito Plaza, Bayfair Center, Hilltop Mall and Sunvalley Mall using period microfilmed pages from the Oakland Tribune. (I am an Oakland native and still take an interest in Bay Area matters, even though I live in Arizona now). The Tribune coverage I found on these malls falls under what I would argue to be nontrivial as the articles detailed information about the mall in a relatively comprehensive fashion and did not just talk about Santa appearances or isolated crime incidents.--Msr69er 14:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been through WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CORP and a host of other Wikipedia standards, but none of them has a "significant newspaper of record" standard that excludes articles from other sources. Nor does WP:V require one-click online access to a source, as long as the sources do fact check for accuracy and can be verified. The existing "multiple non-trivial sources" standard clearly includes a broad range of publications, even local ones in small towns. Alansohn 07:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Alansohn is on the money. As it stands, this sets an insanely high standard, and one that is manifestly out of touch with recent results on AfD. Rebecca 02:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Alansohn is correct here. I have high standards for article inclusion, but even I think that's excessive. There's no need to dismiss all local articles. However (and this sounds awfully familiar), "trivial" needs to be better defined. Taking El Cerrito Plaza as an example... there are two references. That's good, even though both deal with a single event in the history of the mall. There is one source, the San Francisco Chronicle. That's enough for verifiability, though guidelines suggest multiple sources, so another should be sought. The Chronicle can be considered a reasonably reliable source, also good. But the articles are "renovations planned at mall" and "renovations completed and we don't like the way they turned out." I would consider these trivial sources, because renovations happen at thousands of malls, and because the articles can't be used to significantly expand the article. Meanwhile, a claim of noteworthiness, "The site of El Cerrito Plaza is very historic, as it was originally the homestead of Victor Castro, whose father was one of the original Spanish explorers who was given a land grant to the region," goes uncited. In my opinion, a mall article should concentrate on finding sources to support material like this, showing why the mall is not simply a mall like any other. A name-check in a newspaper, or even an entire article devoted to a routine matter, doesn't really help the article develop. I would excluse coverage of routine events (stores opening or closing, renovations, sales) from being considered indicative of notability, though they could of course be used to add the little information they offer to the article. Shimeru 05:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd still tend to advocate sticking closely to WP:CORP and WP:LOCAL, and simply synthesizing these guidelines from those. If a mall is not notable as a corporation but is of local interest, stick a mention in the city article. If it's a Mall of America type thing, on the other hand, it's notable in its own right and deserves its own article. As to what was asked earlier-articles about renovations are likely trivial, especially since they're also probably a reprinted press release in most cases. Mostly, though, I'd tend to say that most malls are of local interest, and should be handled according to WP:LOCAL. The few of regional or national interest will stand out pretty clearly. Seraphimblade 06:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you're in the minority in those beliefs. Of the shopping centres nominated for deletion in the last few weeks due to Elonka's spree, only the most suburban (i.e. less than, say, 150 stores with no other claim to notability) have been deleted, and many that are nothing like the Mall of America example were resoundingly kept - even a few which I thought were borderline got no consensus results. The fundamental problem with this draft guideline is that is entirely biased - it's been drafted entirely by those who don't believe in including malls in the encyclopedia (or believe in greatly limiting the number or routinely merging them), and thus in no way reflects the actual results received on AfD and broader opinions on this issue. Rebecca 09:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Actually, it's been drafted almost entirely by one of the people most vocal about including mall articles on Wikipedia. And a string of "no consensus" AfD results does not indicate a consensus to keep such articles. Shimeru 10:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree-many of the "keep" !votes specifically cited a lack of consensus in this area, and were more in favor of deferring judgment until more discussion takes place then an actual "I think it passes policy". Shimeru is also correct-the only reason to draft any type of guideline like this would be to include more mall articles, if we simply followed WP:LOCAL and WP:CORP very few would merit an article. I also strongly agree with the fear of instruction creep stated above-what's wrong with sticking to the basic "Does it have enough coverage in independent sources to write a decent article from, and if so, is it of local or extra-local interest?" I think this would be much better than the proposed guidelines involving "leasable area" and such-a mall designed to look like the Millennium Falcon would likely receive a ton of press and be notable even if it only had 300,000 square feet, where a million square foot shopping center in Manhattan or LA might be "just one more" and not notable at all. Seraphimblade 20:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The only time the "let's work this out and keep it in the meantime" votes were raised was with the latest batch last week, when Elonka nominated another whole bunch of shopping centres at random and they were speedy kept. All of this is because one side of the debate keeps drafting guidelines on their own and expecting that they'll override a general consensus that goes the other way. Approximately five editors voted to make WP:LOCAL a guideline, yet far more than five voted to keep articles that you're suggesting could be deleted under its auspices. It's at least something, however, if we go back to a sources requirement - while it's a completely arbitrary requirement that's pretty poor for determining actual notability, it at least doesn't try to override repeated results on AfD with the opinions of one side, as people were trying to do in the "any meat?" section. Rebecca 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I expect i have argued for excluding more malls than I have for including, but I don't keep score. I would like to have some basis for those decisions rather than gut feeling, or "all malls are notable" or "no malls are notable." This is a step in the right direction and helps us keep from starting from scratch onn each afd. Edison 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for misstating Msr69er's point of view, and concur with Edison's argument that this is a step in the right direction. We need some kind of standard, or else every entrepreneur in Los Angeles with a seven-store corner strip mall will be trying to add their enterprise to Wikipedia! --Coolcaesar 05:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Of all the shopping mall articles nominated for deletion recently, whether notable or not, there is no evidence that any of them were created for reasons of commercial promotion, rather than some guy deciding to write about them. Rebecca 04:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, but there's little evidence that they are notable, either. The burden of showing these malls actually exist (and also that they are notable) is on the editor inserting the information, not the person challenging it! See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Plus Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Anyway, in the U.S. it is really easy for Wikipedia editors to find verifiable sources online through ProQuest, LexisNexis, WorldCat, etc. I know Australia is a little behind the rest of the world (settled by convicts, high dropout rate in the educational system, etc.), but that's no excuse for cutting corners and building a sloppy encyclopedia full of advertising garbage. --Coolcaesar 08:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet, as I just pointed out, none of this stuff actually is advertising in any way, shape or form. They may or may not be notable, but this is a totally different question, and to try to claim that it's somehow spam when there's no evidence that it was written with any commercial intent is just disingenous. Notability is an entirely different debate, and one that we need to have, but I'm sick and tired of these baseless allegations being made without the slightest shred of evidence. Rebecca 08:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then let's move on to notability-blatant spamming can be handled by G11 anyway, so I suggest we all presume that this discussion applies to mall articles which are not blatant spamming but are of questionable notability. Seraphimblade 09:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Places of local interest

Feedback is requested on this (proposed) guideline about articles on "local" places, such as churches, historic buildings, malls, masts, neighbourhoods, parks, schools, stations, and streets. Please respond to its talk page rather than here. Thank you. (Radiant) 16:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearer Language

I think that trying to establish clear guidelines here is a great idea, but I don't think this proposal is there yet. I think I would say something like this:

Malls and shopping centres are a feature of the landscape in developed nations around the world; as with airport terminals and business hotels, they tend to be quite similar. Therefore, in usual practice malls and shopping centres are NOT to have individual articles, but instead are to be mentioned only in locality articles.

Malls and shopping centres are to be considered notable if they meet one or more of the following criteria:

• Size - They are the largest in a US state; they are one of the 10 largest in a major country; they are one of the five largest in a medium-sized country; they are the largest in a small country.
• Cultural/Commercial Impact - The building or closing of a mall/shopping centre is commonly covered in the local news sources, and these articles are not to be considered as evidence of notability. However, if there have been several major feature articles or series concerning the impact of the mall in local newspapers, or lesser articles in national publications, then it is to be considered notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianyoumans (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
• Political Impact - If the mall/shopping centre has been the subject of multiple non-trivial articles over several years concerning political disputes (attempts to solicit or campaign, zoning disputes, etc.), then it is to be considered notable.
• Historical Impact If the mall/shopping centre has been the cite of notable events - crime, union activity, etc. - notable enough to be covered by multiple non-trivial news sources, then it may be considered notable.

This idea definitely qualifies as "something I made up on my couch one day", and I will try to improve it by reviewing some of the past AFD discussions and whatever other advice I can find, but I am also interested in comments. --Brianyoumans 20:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is still conflicting with repeated consensus results on AfD, and thus continues the problem of the losing side repeatedly trying to write their own deletion guidelines. Numerous, if not most of the articles nominated in the Elonka spree were kept despite meeting, in a lot of cases, none of the above criteria. Thus, the criteria are out of touch. Rebecca 01:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

One million square feet (Blue Light Special in Aisle 3: Marked down to 800,000 square feet!!!)

The first criterion reads

Shopping centers are usually notable if the scope of activities is currently and/or historically large enough in scale to warrant multiple, non-trivial published works of credible and reliable secondary source material to be written about it, produced independently of the mall owner or developer. Malls at or larger than one million square feet (93000 square meters) of gross leasable area fall under this category in many cases. Because of the commercial nature of malls, such sources are much more likely to come from the popular press (i.e, newspapers) rather than peer-reviewed journals and/or scholarly books, although scholarly sources do exist in a few cases. Such information should be nevertheless able to be verified by a third party source.

[emphasis added by me] The bolded langauge seems to come close to suggesting that malls should be kept because "this number is big" and had been cited as such at least once in AfD [3]. Is floor area meant to be a substitute for mentions in reliable sources? JChap2007 02:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in this regard- 1,000,000, while a nice, round number, is also an arbitrary one. However, aside from that provision, I generally like WP:MALL a great deal. I feel it's quite well-written, with only this exception. -- Kicking222 21:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw the "million square foot of GLA criterion for a regional mall" criterion somewhere described as an industry standard, but now I can't find it. While looking for it I found [4] which has some interesting numbers for the total of regional and super regional shopping centers compared to the total number, They also say there are 2093 malls in the US over 350,000 square feet of gross leasable area. There are 1689 regional malls in the US with 35 stores or more, which is also an area for setting standards. I'm still looking for definitions of "regional mall" and "superregional mall." There are apparently 37,500 shopping centers in the US, including all the smallest, and I'm betting that we want criteria which would tend to keep the regional malls or a subset of them and screen out the local ones (unless a little one has lots of notability: Hemingway founded it, Picasso decorated it, it won architectural awards, it is constantly the subject of national news stories.) Edison 22:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The ICSC at [5] calls one a regional mall if it is 400,000 to 800,000 and a superregional if it is above 800,000 (presumably gross leasable area) and they total 1182 regional and superregional in the US. They say there are 611 larger than 800,000 square feet. So the million square foot number would screen out all but a few hundred, but I have not found any industry basis for using it. [6] says a 108,000 square meter (1,162,000 sq ft) new mall in Brazil is considered "superregional." I suppose the million square foot area should be decreased to 800,000 to allow some presumption of notability for "superregional" malls. Edison 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If the consensus is to go with super-regional for a size criteria, then I'd rather see the criteria point to the definition used by ICSC. Or we can point to the super-regional mall article. This takes us out of the numbers games. Vegaswikian 01:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I just added the ICSC sizes to the shopping mall article, so that could be used as reference rather then placing a hard guideline here. Vegaswikian 03:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How about we just leave it at multiple nontrivial reliable source mentions? I think that would work far better then just a number of square feet. Seraphimblade 14:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think dropping a size requirement entirely and going strictly on non-trivial sources ought to take care of it and keep us out of trouble. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is no longer a need for a size in this guideline. As a general rule, the super-regional malls should merit an article on that fact alone. All things being equal in terms of coverage, the super-regional mall should have an easier job proving it merits an article then a strip mall. Vegaswikian 18:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would hate to see vanity articles about the corner strip mall even if there were several articles about it in the local paper. "Trivial" seems to be in the mind of the editor arguiing for or against deletion. Where is there an objective definition of it? If an 8 store strip mall was in the paper in a town of 100,000 because there was a big zoning dispute when it was built ("Neighbors say the fast food store being open until midnight will shatter the peace and quiet of their residential neighborhood") then there are random stories about it over the next 10 years: ("Strip mall provides first jobs for minorities in the neighborhood." "Neighbors say they wished the old church had never been torn down to build the strip mall." "Strip mall holds 5th annual limbo contest and street fair." "Strip mall is magnet for gang members to hand out in parking lot") Each story is nontrivial, and they are multiple and independent, but I just can't see it as being encyclopedic, when it is only one of 20 strip malls in the medium sized town. It is eaasier in a deletion debate to just say "Sorry, too little. Mention it in the article for the town per WP:LOCAL." Edison 18:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on historical interest only

I removed a tag which had been added today by Radiant, who commented "(

, debate has died down, mostly superseded by WP:LOCAL anyway) " Radiant has also placed a {Merge} tag to merge this with WP:Local. In some cases, such as WP:CONG this "merge" consisted of replacing all the thoughtful guidelines with a simple redirect to the other guideline. WP:LOCAL would tend to eliminate articles about shopping centers and give them a brief mention in the article about the town they are in. Many shopping malls have survived AfDs, just as many have not, showing that some in fact posess the notability needed to have their own articles. This proposal was created to help provide guidelines for such Afds so we did not start each one from scratch. Please indicate below with a Keep-further discussionKeep-Implement or a Merge-Historical vote what your preferences is. Keep could also note whether you feel this proposal is ready to be implemented as a Wikipedia guideline. Edison 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and ImplementEdison 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and implement. Also expand WikiProject Dead Malls to cover shopping centers in general to bring together a team of editors to cover all of this. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to WP:LOCAL, or merge. I appreciate all the work everyone has done, but I can't believe that shopping malls need more than a few sentences in WP:LOCAL, and don't think the current content is either helpful or reflects consensus. (Also, have you posted a note on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) asking for more input? If not, it might be helpful). Thanks, TheronJ 21:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Did so. Thanks. Edison 22:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and implement if the million-square-foot bit is gotten rid of, else keep and discuss further. No need for an arbitrary number. Seraphimblade 21:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I think Wikipedia:Notability covers most of what this says. Though I think the 1,000,000 sqft of leaseable space is an interesting heuristic, and wonder if that might be merged over to WP:LOCAL at least. --Interiot 21:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak merge to WP:LOCAL or WP:CORP, though it'd probably be fine to have this as its own guideline as well. The important thing is to have something written down about the issue, since it keeps coming up. My own stand is that it doesn't matter how physically large a mall is, nor how much business it does -- what matters is whether or not there are credible third-party sources which prove the mall's notability. If there have been books/articles about the mall itself, then it's notable enough for its own article. However, if all the info we have is from the corporate website, or the only mentions in the media are trivial references here and there, then that's not enough. In that case, the information about the shopping center should instead be incorporated into some other article, such as about the parent community or the mall's main corporation (if it passes its own notability requirements per WP:CORP). --Elonka 05:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Voting is evil. At the moment, I'd lean toward a merge with LOCAL and CORP, but I could see an argument that it merits a stand-alone guideline. I oppose implementing it as a guideline at this time -- I think it's in much better shape than it was, but it seems a bit hasty to be pushing it through. I do not reject it for the moment, but I think further discussion might be warranted. Shimeru 07:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we move towards consensus?

It is time to move towards a consensus on whether or not WP:MALL is a guideline worth having on Wikipedia. Discussions have been ongoing for the last month or so. I have tried to step back and let other interested folks take over the debate: a poll, which seemed to me perfectly acceptable as a way to move towards closure on this issue, was closed.

In my opinion the debate will drag on and on unless action is taken soon. The whole point of making WP:MALL was to provide clarification on shopping mall articles on Wikipedia; and to serve as a guide for writing/editing shopping mall articles which are solid enough as regards to notability to withstand a request for deletion and/or a speedy delete. IMO, neither WP:LOCAL nor WP:CORP adequately address malls in sufficient depth on their own.

I am coming from the position that many individual shopping malls are arguably notable (and deserve coverage on Wikipedia) and that such notability can be proven satisfactorily.

1. Should this guideline be formally adopted? 2. Should it (or portions) be merged into WP:LOCAL? Why or why not? 3. Do we need to have a request for review so outside parties can study the issue, if we can't agree on it?

I await your comments. Thanks a lot.--Msr69er 02:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, in regards to #1, yes, I believe this should ultimately be formally adopted. I've placed the proposed-guideline template on the page itself to that end. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

De-archiving

• I am closing this per WP:NOT a democracy, m:Polling is evil, and WP:POLL. It is terribly annoying to see so many Wikipedians starting polls over disputes that could be settled with consensus. I welcome input on my decision to close this, albeit rather unnecessary, straw poll. Yuser31415 00:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've de-archived the straw poll - IMHO, it was not an attempt to resolve any dispute by democracy, only to gauge current opinion. (Certainly, I haven't seen any behavior that is inconsistent with WP:POLL). Thanks, and sorry if I have stepped on anyone's toes, TheronJ 02:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  I'm okay by this as long as the result is not treated as binding. Yuser31415 20:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Agreed it is not binding. Few things seem to be binding. But see below about the Alice in Wonderland caucus race[7] that it was when WP:PORNBIO and even WP:N staggered toward becoming guidelines: "they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out The race is over! and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, But who has won?"Edison 00:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

Once more people misunderstand {{historical}} as a decree or an attack or something. THAT IS NOT AT ALL WHAT IT SAYS. It says that at present, there is no debate here, and indeed when I put it here there was no debate here. THAT IS ALL. Now there is once more debate here so it's no longer historical. What is it that's so hard to understand about that tag? >Radiant< 09:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It got the discussion into gear again, that's good! I don't think anyone's trying to say you did anything wrong, I certainly don't think you did-just that maybe there was more left to discuss. Seraphimblade 09:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The big X, and the statement that is "kept only for historical interest" clearly seem to say that the tagged proposal is not going to be adopted. It looks like "consensus by one person tagging" that a proposal is rejected. Maybe a lack of new discussion means there is no more controversy. How often do we have to add a comment for you not to place that template? I see that WP:LOCAL had no new discussion from 8/10/06 to 9/1/06 and it escaped "Historical interest only" tagging. Is there a similar tag to be slapped on a proposal that says "Accepted by consensus and now an official guideline?" I do not really understand the mechanics of determining whether there is consensus, since some editors get very upset by straw polls. Edison 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

At WP:PORNBIO they had a straw poll and 6 contributers agreed it was ready to be a proposal. No one jumped in to announce that "Straw polls are prohibited." Others disagreed that the straw poll had the effect of making it a guideline. , and then it was claimed that it was ready to be a guideline because more than 13 people had cited it over an 87 day period in 150 Afds. In the project page for WP:N On Sept. 7, 2006 Radiant created the proposed guideline WP:N. Radiant said that unanimity is not required for consensus [8]. After discussion and collaborative editing and some dissension,(such as we have had here) On Sept. 23, 2006 Radiant declared that WP:N was a guideline by posting a tag that said it was, with the comment "per talk page; this page is simply a description of the status quo).)" and later restored the Guideline tag a few times after other edtors disagreed and removed it. So from those precedents, it looks like those who think WP:MALL should be a guideline should just tag it as such and start referring to it in AfDs where it is relevant. I agree that straw polls can never make it so, so just start treating it as one, if it appears to be the opinion of most (but not necessarily all) that a consensus exists. Edison 00:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Criteria 1 Too inclusive

I am of the opinion that the first criteria, which starts off by claiming "shopping centers are usually notable if the scope of activities is currently and/or historically large enough in scale to warrant multiple, non-trivial published works of credible and reliable secondary source material to be written about it..." is too inclusive. This criteria essentially boils down to "the mall is notable if several published works exist which specifically discuss the mall rather than simply mention it in passing." The problem is that virtually all malls are going to have several, 'non-trivial' sources written about them. Malls are always major commercial centers and virtually every mall will have articles published in all the local papers and magazines when the mall is built, opened, changes ownership or has an event. Since local papers and magazines are going to almost necessarily have a number of articles specifically discussing particular malls in their locale perhaps we should make it so that at least one of these non-trivial sources has to come from a non-local publication... Thoughts? --The Way 04:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we discussed that, but perhaps we should make it clearer. I would be of the opinion that articles looking at when the mall will be built or completed should be counted significantly less-many papers will print "blurbs" about a new shopping mall. I think what we should really look at, in terms of deciding source triviality, is: If we write solely from sourced material, is there enough secondary-source material about the subject to write a comprehensive article, or just a few paragraphs? Fifteen blurbs, each which only state that the mall is being built, its approximate cost, and its projected completion date, would still be properly seen as trivial under this criterion-not enough material exists in those sources to write the article. Seraphimblade 04:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What do others think about requiring that at least one source be from something that can't be considered 'local' in relation to the mall? It seems to me that if a mall really is notable then it's going to get some attention from published sources outside of the city its located in. --The Way 04:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily go for that. My main concern is, "Can a good, solid, comprehensive article be written, using only reliably sourced information?" If the mall has received sufficient coverage, local or otherwise, we should go ahead and write. On the other hand, extra-local coverage could easily be trivial-say, for example, a paper running a comparison of randomly-selected malls nationwide, or coverage of a shooting that happened there. All notability should be concerned with is "Can we write a decent article only using sourced material, or do insufficient sources exist?" Where those sources come from is largely irrelevant. How much usable information they contain and how reliable they are is what is absolutely critical. Seraphimblade 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers usually run articles about shopping malls that say "The Grayfields Mall has lost one of its anchor store with the closing of the 150,000 square foot Sears store" or "Grayfields Mall is to be expanded from 900,000 square feet to 1,200,000 square feet and a new parking garage will be built, along with new landscaping, at a cost of $4,000,000." In each case, the mall is the primary subject of a story in an independent, reliable and verifiable source. These stories are somehow discounted in deletion debates as "being about the store rather than the mall" or "being just press releases that the paper automatically prints." I do not elieve that newspapers automatically and thoughtlessly reprint press releases as news stories without subjecting them to editorial review, any more than they automatically pront news stories about individuals who want to be in the news, unless it is in fact news which is of interest to the readership and of importance to the community. I feel that such stories are in fact good sources for writing an article, and that if there are enough of them it meetes the requirement for having independent reliable and verifiable sources. In contrast, we have articles for characters in fiction such as Hermione Granger or Doctor McCoy, not to mention 493 Pokemon characters, which are sourced to the work of fiction, interviews with the author, or the game or game manual (hardly independent) or to fan sites (hardly reliable), and which are original research, but they get a pass because they are interesting to the young, tech oriented editors of Wikipedia in contrast to boring real life things like malls, churches, choral groups, or libraries. It is not right to discount each newspaper or magazine article about a mall as "trivial" while we have literally hundreds of thousands of articles without any sources at all, and hundreds of thousands more sourced only to the website of the subject, or to unreliable nonindependent sources such discussed above for fiction/game characters, plots, locations, or weapons. If a story says "3 hurt in escalator accident at Grayfields Mall" or "Big Christmas sale at Grayfields starts with arrival of Santa" I agree that the mall is not really the primary subject; the accident or the sale is the subject. The exception would be if the accident went on to describe the crumbling infrastructure of the mall, the leaking roof, mold in the foodcourt, etc. If an article discusses building of the mall, sales increases or decreases based on improvements or increasing competition,or the mall taking business away from the old downtown stores, then the mall is the primary subject. Wikipedia is not paper, and we do not need to eliminate well sourced articles about malls even if some find them boring. "ILIKEIT" is not a valid basis for keeping poorly sourced Pokemon articles and deleting mall articles. Edison 17:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I apply "IHATEIT" to Pokemon articles instead? I agree that those are problematic (to put it the nicest way I can), as are the thousands of garbage articles on minor fictional characters and places. However, "other garbage articles are here" is not a valid keep reason either. I have no issue with a good article on a mall. If there's enough coverage that we can comprehensively treat the mall's impact on and importance to its area, history, and the like, we can have a decent article on it and I'd never in a million years argue to delete it. Press releases might be applicable as sources if used according to the cautions for any primary source written by the subject, but it's certainly not applicable for notability, any more than any primary source is. Notability requires nontrivial secondary sourcing, and something written by the subject is primary. Also, I imagine that all malls are of interest to their community. However, the newspaper is writing for that community. Here, we're writing for the world, and we must ask ourselves "Is this of interest to the community which we write for (a global audience), or a significant fraction thereof? Can we contribute anything that visiting the mall's website would not tell anyone? Is the secondary sourcing primarily taking interest in the mall itself, or in something of interest which happens to be at the mall? Can there ever be a comprehensive, well-sourced article about this mall? Will there ever be? I would most certainly agree that some malls are notable, and that if they are, they should have an article. What we shouldn't be having, though, is articles on malls because they're of interest to someone. What's special about it? WP:NOT a directory, of malls or anything else. We are an encyclopedia which writes on subjects which are notable, verifiable, and of interest to a sizeable portion of a worldwide audience. There must be a clear bar. If allowing in malls which have received solely local coverage regarding closure of stores and such, we're dangerously close to a "categorical keep"-that fits almost all malls, if not all period. Seraphimblade 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The size criterion of 800,000 square feet of Gross leasable area, corresponding to the definition of a superregional mall by International Association of Shopping Centers, will tend to screen out many small malls which have nothing else going for them. And I want to go back to Wikipedians' frequent claim that you may not take note of the hundreds of thousands of garbage articles whose being kept does not appear to be in question when arguing that for the retention of sourced articles about boring real world things. If the teacher gives me an F on my homework because I got 5 math problems out of ten wrong, but gives an A about half the students in the class who never turned in the homework or turned in blank paper, I would not accept the reply that I can't cite their deficiencies as an argument for why I shouldn't fail. There is clearly one standard for boring real world things and a different one for shiny things which amuse young technorati editors, and this is inconsistent with the stated policies of Wikipedia as to what has to be demonstrated to justify keeping an article. Boring things have to meet and exceed the requirements; shuny things just have to meet the "ILIKEIT" criterion, and we are not supposed to notice that. It is not just that a few garbage articles about cartoon characters or Pokemon characters or kids with a band haven't made their way into the deletion process yet. It is more like a speed cop who only tickets people of one race for speeding. It is bias. Edison 19:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) If you're going to tell me about WP:ILIKEIT as a problem, believe me, you're preaching to the choir. I certainly don't think we need an article on every Pokemon or minor Star Wars character any more than we need an article on every mall or school. It does seem to me to be an across the board issue though. I am across the board against "notability by categorization", and am also against "non-notability by categorization". If some individual Pokemon has received sufficient secondary source coverage, by all means, let's write up the article! If the only source material available is primary, any article on the subject would be begging for original research. Same with Star Trek/Star Wars characters, or any other "shinies". However, we also shouldn't have "notability by category" on railway stations, malls, or anything else. Either the subject has sufficient nontrivial secondary source coverage for an article, and should have one, or it doesn't, and should not. Of course, from there, we must apply some further standards of encyclopedic notability-not everything covered in a few newspapers is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, that's what Wikinews is for. But that first cutoff should be secondary source coverage, and no matter how suitable a subject it would be if it had that coverage, if it doesn't, it shouldn't be written up here until that happens. However, we shouldn't use "There are serious problems in one part of the project" as a reason to ignore the same problem elsewhere. Rather, we should solve that problem in one place, as a model of how to solve it in others. Maybe at some point, once these issues are solved, we can start "catching 'em all". Seraphimblade 19:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I would add, Edison, that if you'd like to nominate some of those unsourced "shiny" articles for deletion, you'd have my support. At best, sources would be found, improving the article. Second-best, there might be a reasonable shot for some of it to be deleted. I would like nothing better than to see "multiple secondary sources" become Wikipedia policy for all articles. Shimeru 20:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Listing of active proposals at WP:N

What does it take to get this proposal to show up in the box with other active proposals such as WP:CONG at WP:N? I do not see how to edit it. Edison 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a template. I've added this proposal as "Shopping centers and malls" -- perhaps that will attract some more discussion. Shimeru 22:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• See proposal to reject this guideline below. --Kevin Murray 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Status

What is the current status of things? For example, what should we be doing with articles like this:

• Westfield Figtree

In my opinion, there's not enough there to justify an article. There's little content, there are no secondary references aside from the business's own website, and there's no assertion of notability aside from "It's a mall." An attempt, three months ago, to tag it as needing expansion or merging[9] just got reverted [10]. Since then, nothing new has been done to this article, nor many others just like it. It is my recommendation that we either delete things like this, or perhaps merge the information into some larger article, such as about the chain or the parent community. If more references become available later, then an independent article can be easily re-established. --Elonka 02:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Other articles with similar problems: No assertion of notability, no secondary sources, and (IMHO) no reason that they should be kept as independent articles:

• Westfield Warrawong
• Westfield North Rocks
• Westfield Figtree
• Westfield North Lakes
• Westfield Liverpool
• Carlingford Court
• Westfield Downtown
• Wollongong Central
• Settlement City Shopping Plaza
• Two-Double-Seven
• Westfield Manukau City
• Westfield Pakuranga
• Westfield St. Lukes

According to the October 2006 article in the Wikipedia signpost, we should be more aggressive about deleting corporate spam. Wikipedia executive director Brad Patrick has been encouraging editors to act "in a more draconian fashion" concerning pages that are "blatantly commercial." His specific language is "shoot on sight."[11] It is my opinion that all of the articles on the above list fall into this "commercial" category, and should be deleted, or at the very least, merged. The only reason that I have not been pursuing them, is because there was a request to hold off while the matter was debated. However, the debate appears to have died down, so I would like to once again push for action. Let me also be clear that I am not simply "against articles about malls." There are several good and worthy "shopping center" articles on Wikipedia, which are well-referenced and make an adequate case for notability, and which I have no problem with. But in the case of an article which is about a commercial entity, which has no assertion of notability, and has no sources aside from its own corporate website, then yes, I think those articles need to be deleted. --Elonka 20:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the merge was rejected, I'd say nominate it for deletion. (Don't nominate all of those at once, though. Maybe one or two a day.) Shimeru 09:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a lot of these fit {{db-corp}}? I don't see notability even asserted, much less supported, in most of these. Seraphimblade 09:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, a lot of these do fit {{db-corp}}. A few did assert notability (though didn't back it up, but even the dumbest assertion precludes a speedy), so notability/primary source tags have been placed on those. Seraphimblade 18:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned with the unilateral undeletions, and suggest that we take a couple of them to Wikipedia:Deletion review to see about overturning them. --Elonka 22:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Waiting a day or two for more comments on the deletion review might be wise. If the discussion there continues to support the speedy deletions, then I think adding additional articles as speedy for spam would not be unreasonable. If those with some assertion of notability are found, take those to prod, maybe with a pointer to the undeletion request or maybe the one mall that is currently on AfD. Vegaswikian 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Several mall stubs that have been being speedy-deleted by various admins, but were then all undeleted by Rebecca, are up for deletion review to decide if they should have been undeleted or not. Any interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion. --Elonka 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus to reject delete this proposal

It seems like this proposal is going nowhere and should be rejected deleted to avoid confusion. --Kevin Murray 00:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly Disagree with the tagging, and see consensus here for the proposal. It is looking disruptive to the Wikipedia project for one editor to suddenly tag as rejected a whole series of guidelines or proposals, including this one, WP:CONG, WP:NOTNEWS , Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) and WP:SCHOOL. Have I missed any? Oh yes, there is a MFD to delete Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (films). Did the person doing the tagging notify persons who have contributed to the discussion or edited the proposal, and was notice given at a forum such as Village Pump or Community Portal for such a radical pruning of guidelines?Edison 15:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Considering most of those pages were never guidelines to begin with, it's definitely not a "radical pruning". Note that about 90% of proposals on Wikipedia fail, and that we've had a large influx of notability-related proposals lately. It is then unsurprising that a bunch of them fail. >Radiant< 15:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please consider that what Edison suggests was done at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) which asks people to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability/overview. Any recent tagging of proposals was in keeping with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. --Kevin Murray 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see sections 8 and 9 above for specific attempts to reach consensus, which failed. --Kevin Murray 16:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• There has been no progress toward consensus for this to become a guideline, thus per standards this is by default rejected by the community. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected." --Kevin Murray 18:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Since it is referred to in deletion debates, maybe it has arrived at consensus. Edison 19:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately many people do not recognize that proposals carry no weight in AfD and thus either cite them out of ignorance or in pushing an invalid point to persuade those who are unaware. Regardless erroneous usage does not demonstrate consensus. --Kevin Murray 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Edison, you may want to seek broader feedback on that via WP:RFC or the WP:VP. >Radiant< 09:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• It appears to have failed to gain consensus, per numerous XfD results as well as the lack of agreement on this page. Orderinchaos 10:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

AFDs involving malls relevant to usefulness of this proposed guideline.

Note: these might be of interest if a similar subject-specific guideline is created in the future.

• Starting March 4, 2007
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hickory Ridge Mall March 4, 2007. 865,000 sq ft of GLA=SuperregionalEdison 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Result was Keep 855,000 sq. ft --Kevin Murray 16:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• • This is another example where the WP:N and WP:ATT guidelines work just fine. Has obvious notability but weak references. Should never have gotten to AfD, but should have been tagged for weak references. --Kevin Murray

02:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgewater Mall(No GLA stated) Edison 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The result of the above AfD was "Delete". --Elonka 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dufferin Mall April 10, 2007. (stated GLA indicates merely a regional mall. Less than 800,000 square feet.) Edison 05:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The result was "Keep" Edison 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen's Quay Terminal April 15, 2007. (noted that GLA of 503,000 was less than that of a super-regional mall and called for deletion absent multiple nontrivial coverage in reliable sources.) Edison 20:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Result was Keep 750,000 square feet --Kevin Murray 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge Centre 719,000 sq ft of GLA. April 15, 2007. Edison 20:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The result was "Keep." Edison 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayfield Mall 450,000 sq ft GLA. April 15, 2007. Edison 20:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Result was Delete--Kevin Murray 16:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairview Mall (St. Catharines) GLA not stated, not the largest in its area. April 15, 2007. Edison 20:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete --Kevin Murray 16:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairview Park Mall 746,000 sq ft GLA. April 15, 2007.Edison 20:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep --Kevin Murray 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kozlov Centre Under 400,000 sq ft. April 15, 2007. Edison 21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The result was "Delete." Edison 21:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wenatchee Valley Mall Under 400,000 sq ft. April 27, 2007. Edison 16:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The result was no consensus. Edison 16:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champlain Centre South Dead mall, size unknown. April 27, 2007. Edison 16:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The result was no consensus. Edison 16:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Square Mall Dead regional mall, 550,000 sq ft GLA. April 27, 2007. Edison 16:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The result was delete. Edison 17:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield North Rocks - Delete (merge to parent community)
  • Speedy-deleted under {{db-corp}}[12] Decision upheld at Deletion Review[13] --Elonka 22:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Westfield Downtown
    • Westfield Figtree
    • Westfield Warrawong
    • Settlement City Shopping Plaza
    • Westfield Pakuranga
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westgate City Center May 3.No source for GLA; Unsourced claim in AFD claim that it is unique and 6.5 million square feet (not clear whether that includes residential and sports complex). Edison 16:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Article edited to claim 510,000 square feet of "retail space." Result was Keep. Edison 21:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Keeping up the list of Kept/Deleted articles with notation of GLA in case that seems definitive if the proposed guideline is ever resurrected. A table could be a useful format for same. Edison 07:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • One point that can be overlooked is when the AfD causes the notability to be added as a result of being listed. Chapel Hills Mall is a case in point. After the speedy delete vote, there were at least 2 prods that were removed and one speedy delete. So for n article like this we should assume that it would not have been nominated if the size and other notability points had been made. Vegaswikian 02:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe a lesson here is to flag all of the current unknown size or function malls with {{Notability}}. Then allow a few weeks before nominating them. Vegaswikian 02:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

AFD results in table form for easy viewing

• Comment This information might be better represented in a table format. Do you folks know how to do that? If not, I can take a stab at it this weekend. --Elonka 22:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How about this?

Mall AfDs

Nominated	Article	Discussion	Result	GLA(sq. ft)	Comments
2006-11-20	Westfield Glenfield	Discussion	No consensus		New Zealand
2006-11-21	Westfield Bondi Junction	Discussion	Kept after rewrite/expansion		Australia
2006-11-21	Westfield Mission Valley	Discussion	No consensus		California
2006-11-21	Westfield Tuggerah	Discussion	No consensus		Australia
2006-11-26	Westfield Belconnen	Discussion	Speedy close pending centralized discussion		Australia
2006-11-26	Westfield Chatswood	Discussion	Speedy close pending centralized discussion		Australia
2007-01-09	Rushmore Mall	Discussion	No consensus	828995	U.S., super-regional.
2007-02-04	Westfield North Rocks	Discussion	Merge	?	Australia. Merged to city article, later re-created.
2007-02-16	Settlement City Shopping Plaza	Speedy deletion upheld at DRV	Speedy-deleted
2007-02-16	Westfield Warrawong	Speedy deletion upheld at DRV	Speedy-deleted		Re-created July 30, 2007
2007-02-16	Westfield Figtree	Speedy deletion upheld at DRV	Speedy-deleted		Re-created July 30, 2007
2007-02-16	Westfield Downtown	Speedy deletion upheld at DRV	Speedy-deleted		Re-created July 31, 2007
2007-02-16	Westfield Pakuranga	Speedy deletion upheld at DRV	Speedy-deleted		Re-created July 31, 2007
2007-03-04	Hickory Ridge Mall	Discussion	Keep	855,000	U.S., super-regional
2007-03-15	Edgewater Mall	Discussion	Delete	?	U.S.
2007-04-10	Dufferin Mall	Discussion	Keep	567,000	Canada
2007-04-15	Queen's Quay Terminal	Discussion	Keep	750,000	Canada
2007-04-15	Cambridge Centre	Discussion	Keep	719,000	Canada
2007-04-15	Bayfield Mall	Discussion	Delete	450,000	Canada?
2007-04-15	Fairview Mall (St. Catharines)	Discussion	Delete	?	GLA unknown, but not largest in area
2007-04-15	Fairview Park Mall	Discussion	Keep	746,000	Canada
2007-04-15	Kozlov Centre	Discussion	Delete	under 400,000	Canada
2007-04-27	Wenatchee Valley Mall	Discussion	No consensus	269,464	U.S., smaller than regional
2007-04-27	Champlain Centre South	Discussion	No consensus	?	U.S., Dead mall, size unknown
2007-04-27	London Square Mall	Discussion	Delete	550,000	Dead mall
2007-05-03	Westgate City Center	Discussion	Keep	510,000	U.S., Regional mall, has residential and sports complex
2007-06-10	Southland Mall	Discussion	Delete	471,000
2007-07-01	The Waterfront	Discussion	Keep	1,100,000	U.S., super-regional mall. GLA was added after the AFD
2007-07-01	Waterworks Mall	Discussion	Keep	914,638	U.S., Super-regional
2007-07-12	Copper Tree Mall (New Jersey)	Discussion	Delete	?	U.S.
2007-07-17	Forum Mall (Kolkata)	Discussion	Keep	125,000	India
2007-07-13	Delta Plaza Mall	Discussion	Delete	?	U.S.?
2007-07-14	Brighton Mall	Discussion	Delete	290,000 (in re-created article)	U.S. Smaller than regional. Recreated Aug. 7, 2007. AFD again Aug 7 2007, closed by nominator.
2007-07-16	Karrinyup Shopping Centre	Discussion	Keep	616790	Australia
2007-07-24	Alpena Mall	Discussion	Delete	225,000	smaller than regional
2007-07-26	Hyde Park Village	Discussion	No Consensus	284,000	U.S. Lifestyle center.
2007-07-27	Brand Junction	Discussion	Keep	?	Australia
2007-07-27	Greensborough Plaza	Discussion	Keep	624,000	Australia
2007-07-30	Cape Cod Mall	Discussion	No consensus, default to Keep	736,493	U.S, regional. Re-nominated Aug. 12,2007
2007-08-01	Bharath Mall	Discussion	Delete	?	India
2007-08-02	Meadowlands Shopping Plaza	Discussion	Delete	?	Small convenience center in New Zealand, parking for 280 cars.
2007-08-02	Heritage Crossing Shopping Center	Discussion	Delete	600,000+	U.S., regional. No refs yet in article. Under construction on 92 acres.
2007-08-02	Kelston Shopping Centre	Discussion	Delete	?	CSD G12. Otherwise, disagreement about notability in AFD
2007-08-02	Waitakere Mega Centre	Discussion	Keep	178,000	New Zealand
2007-08-02	Albany Mega Centre	Discussion	Delete	?	New Zealand
2007-08-02	Westfield Manukau City	Discussion	Keep	396,000 sq ft	New Zealand
2007-08-02	Manukau Supa Centre	Discussion	Delete	317,000 sq ft	New Zealand
2007-08-02	Interplaza Shoptown	Discussion	Delete	?	Mexico
2007-08-02	Pennrose Mall	Discussion	Delete	?	U.S.
2007-08-02	Southmall Manurewa	Discussion	Keep	390,978	New Zealand
2007-08-04	Chapel Hills Mall	Discussion	Keep	1,200,000	U.S., super-regional. First AfD was speedy delete. Article modified after 2nd nomination to include size and other reasons for notability
2007-08-05	Mercury Mall	Discussion	Delete	?	U.S., dead mall.
2007-08-05	Stratford Square Mall	Discussion	Keep	1.3 million	U.S., super-regional
2007-08-05	Whitehall Mall	Discussion	Delete	592,000	U.S., regional
2007-08-07	Brighton Mall	Discussion	Closed by nominator as Keep	290,000	U.S., smaller than regional. Power center.
2007-08-09	Ashtabula Mall	Discussion	No consensus, default to Keep.	1,074,470	U.S., super-regional
2007-08-09	Southland Mall (Marion, Ohio)	Discussion	Speedy delete	?	U.S. No assertion of notability
2007-08-09	North park mall	Discussion	Speedy delete	?	U.S., no claim of notability, claimed to be spam.
2007-08-12	Cape Cod Mall	Discussion	Speedy keep	736,493	U.S,. regional mall. Was nominated previously July 30, 2007.
2007-08-15	Northgate Mall (Tullahoma)	Discussion	Speedy delete	?	U.S. No sources, scant information. Deleted January 2007 in first AFD.
2007-08-15	Nottingham Square	Discussion	Delete	?	Maryland, U.S. strip mall
2007-08-15	Newington Mall	Discussion	Delete	480,000 [14]	Regional dead mall in New Hampshire.
2007-08-15	Roosevelt Mall	Discussion	Delete	?	Strip mall in Philadelphia
2007-08-15	Golden East Crossing	Discussion	Delete	584,176	Regional, North Carolina.
2007-08-15	Wausau Center	Discussion	No consensus	429,970	Regional, Wisconsin
2007-08-16	County Fair Mall (Thunder Bay)	Discussion	Delete	120,000	Ontario
2007-08-17	Commons at Holmdel	Discussion	Delete	235,000	New Jersey strip mall
2007-08-17	Crossroads Bellevue	Discussion	Delete	?	Washington state
2007-08-17	Jamestown Mall	Discussion	Delete	1,010,400	Super-regional, Missouri,
2007-08-17	Pittsford Plaza	Discussion	Delete	513,389	regional, New York,
2007-08-17	Quintard Mall	Discussion	Delete	720,000	regional, Alabama,
2007-08-17	Scottsdale Mall	Discussion	Delete	?	dead mall, Indiana,
2007-08-17	Rock Hill Galleria	Discussion	AFD re-opened, nomination withdrawn, so kept	692,367	Regional, South Carolina,
2007-08-19	Lakeview Square Mall	Discussion	Delete	606,000	Regional, Michigan
2007-08-19	The Mall at Partridge Creek	Discussion	Keep	640,000	Regional, Michigan, to open October 2007
2007-08-19	Green Oak Village Place	Discussion	Delete	550,000	Regional, Michigan
2007-08-20	Rockingham Mall	Discussion	Delete	344,076	Strip mall, formerly enclosed, New Hampshire
2007-08-21	City Center Plaza	Discussion	Delete	?	Dead mall, Wisconsin
2007-08-21	Champlain Centre North	Discussion	Delete	?	Size unknown, New York
2007-08-21	Champlain Centre South	Discussion	Add result here: ambiguous	?	Dead mall, size unknown, New York. Bundled with Champlain Center North. Previously nominated Nov 22,2006 [15] (Keep) and Apr 27, 2007[16] (No consensus).
2007-08-21	Diamond Run Mall	Discussion	Delete	447,115	Regional, Vermont
2007-08-25	Green Bay Plaza	Discussion	Delete	?	in Wisconsin
2007-08-25	Pine Tree Mall	Discussion	Delete	"small"	in Wisconsin
2007-month-date	Perry Hall Shopping Center	Discussion	Delete	?	Strip mall in Maryland
2007-08-25	Framingham Mall	Discussion	No consensus, so kept.	?	In Massachusetts, "demalled" by demolition of interior court
2007-08-26	Cypress Creek Town Center	Discussion	Keep	1,500,000	Super-regional, Florida, to be completed 2008
2007-08-26	Cinnaminson Mall	Discussion	Delete	?	Dead "indoor minimall" New Jersey
2007-08-27	Bellair Plaza	Discussion	Delete	?	Florida, strip mall
2007-September-24	Mall of Georgia	Discussion	Add result here	1,786,000 sq ft	Georgia, superregional, largest in state
2007-month-date	Add name here	Discussion	Add result here	Add GLA here	Add comment here
2007-month-date	Add name here	Discussion	Add result here	Add GLA here	Add comment here
2007-month-date	Add name here	Discussion	Add result here	Add GLA here	Add comment here
2007-month-date	Add name here	Discussion	Add result here	Add GLA here	Add comment here
2007-month-date	Add name here	Discussion	Add result here	Add GLA here	Add comment here
2007-month-date	Add name here	Discussion	Add result here	Add GLA here	Add comment here

I moved the other AFD results since January 1 2007 in, to include (I hope) all which have been nominated since Jan 1 2007. Also checked history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Malls to catch all noted there for 2007. They are removed from that listing when the AFD debate closes, so this provides a more permanent record and add the GLA even if not noted in the AFD. I did not bring in a cluster of Speedy deletes which never went to AFD. Should they be added, or tabulated separately? Feel free to add any I missed. The more recent ones seem more useful for future reference in AFDs than AFDs of last year and before. (edited). Edison 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: per discussion at Talk:Shopping mall the "regional" classification for 400,000 to 799,999 sq ft and "super-regional" for 800,000 sq ft and over are limited, strictly speaking, to the U.S., per the ICSC (2004) definitions in the ref list at that article. The ICSC (1999) definitions made no such national limitation. There is supposed to be an ICSC nomenclature for Europe, and that does not apply to Australia, for instance. Such comments have now been removed from the above table for non-US centers. Edison 17:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the table, nice job.  :) I'd also like to see some information on speedy deletes/redirects, especially those that were reviewed at DRV. --Elonka 19:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

New malls listed for AFD can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Malls, but there is no guarantee all such AFDs will show up there. Edison 20:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Note Because of increased RealLife demands on my time from a job, and because of the desire to spend time on administrative duties as a newly promoted administrator on Wikipedia, I will no longer be able to add all shopping center AFD nominations and results to this list, but it can be kept for reference as to deletion decisions for the time period it covered, to see what tended to survive and what tended to be eliminated, should there be a new effort to state notability standards for malls. Edison 16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:3O

User:Radiant! requested a third opinion on the matter of the inclusion or otherwise of the rationale for rejection on a number of project pages. I believe that given this is quoting directly from WP:POL, this is duplication, and is not necessary. However, if User:Kevin Murray feels that other editors may be in doubt over the matter of why the pages are considered rejected, it may be appropriate to leave a note on this talk page (possibly under the "rejected" header above). Chris cheese whine 10:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

New draft

Has anyone considered making a new draft of this proposal? I've got some ideas. TenPoundHammer 18:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There can always be a new/improved version created. But the problem is that a vocal minority can always insist "There is no consensus" and then tag a guideline as "rejected." Edison 05:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One way to establish a consensus is continuing discussions of AfD. A series of malls of different sizes & with varing ammoutns of other material should be proposed at the same time but in separate nominations, and lets see what people think.Where's a good area? Toronto?

Another question is the increased use of Google News, which is capable of finding all the "new garage extension" type articles referred to above. We probably need some sort of consensus about what counts as trivial. For example, I'd count a story about the arrest of a shoplifter as trivial.DGG 06:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be trivial even if the shoplifter had an article on wikipedia? How about if it was a US Senator. Vegaswikian 06:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability doesn't really "rub off." Now, if all the publicity causes a lot of in-depth stories about the mall, sure, but if the stories go into depth about the person, and just name-drop the mall as being where it happened to happen, they're still trivial sources as to the mall. If anything, it's time to cut back all the subguidelines to WP:N, not make more of them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In the shopping malls which are up for AFD, each should be researched to make sure the GLA is stated so that over the course of time we can see if the brightline distinction of "Over 800,000 square feet of gross leasable area, which is defined by ISCA as 'superregional,' (edited to add since 2004 the regional and superredgional nomenclature from ISCA applies only to the U.S) gets kept and the smaller regional malls, power centers and local shopping centers get deleted. Unless of course they are notable based on books and articles about their fine architecture, their commerecial importance, their pioneering role as the first enclosed shopping center, etc. Many people create articles about their local mall which may or may not be important enough for an article without knowing about or looking up the GLA figure. The superregionals include only a few hundred out of the 30thousand plus malls of all sizes in the US, and in deletion debates they tend to get lumped together. Edison 14:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Seraphimblade that there is nothing distinctively unique about shopping malls which make these eligible for separate inclusion criteria. Simply applying the standards of WP:N or WP:ORG should easily sort out the issues. Of course there will always be visitors to AfD discussions who misunderstand or misapply the standards, but more rules won't make these people more informed or more adept. --Kevin Murray 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• I had occasion to refer to this in an AFD and desided to label it as an "essay" rather than a "rejected guideline." Edison 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Only thing is, it's not an essay. It was designed as a notability guideline that got tossed by the community. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since WP:NOTNEWS was identically moved from "Rejected guideline" to "Essay"" and since it makes it way easier to refer to in AFDs, I am restoring the tag. It does not matter "what it was designed as." Edison 00:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

With this in mind, let's consense. Look below... SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

contents of articles

I would like to reconsider the lists of businesses usually a part of shopping mall articles. WP is not a directory, an there is no purposes in having every store listed. I could understand the anchors, for to some extent they determine the importance and set the economic class. But the others are linkfarms for the companies listed. DGG 03:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A Shopping Mall Project could do the same kind of standard setting as the US Roads project, to try and keep all such articles up to a good level of quality. As is, it would be a matter of going to each individual article and seeking to delete the individual store listings as "nonencyclopedic." (Edited to clarify)Lists of the minor routine branches of nationwide stores at a mall seem less than encyclopedic and hard to keep up to date, since the little stores change more often than the anchors. Edison 05:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking - we need a shopping mall project to set standards on all these various shopping center articles. I've proposed expanding WikiProject Dead Malls into a full shopping center project (i.e. all malls, not just defunct ones) in the past, but I've never gotten any feedback on such a large expansion yet. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea! --Kevin Murray 16:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. Edison 17:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is done. I have submitted a name change, but I think this will be a great way to revamp this inactive project. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• While I agree that restarting the shopping mall project is a good idea, I don't see any consensus for reactivating this guideline proposal. As it stands this proposal was rejected and the rejected text should not be edited because it stands as an archived record of the proposal which was rejected. --Kevin Murray 17:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If we were ever to agree on one we could use a variant name, but at least we should talk about it. DGG 10:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Convert to essay?

Should we convert this page from a rejected proposal to an essay? Edison says we should. I say we shouldn't. Can we come to some sort of consensus on this? SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason I thought of labelling it an essay is that when an article about a shopping mall is put up for deletion on AFD, it is much more straightforward to refer to an "essay WP:MALL" than to refer to "rejected notability guideline proposal WP:MALL" I do not see that the text of WP:MALL need be any different in the two cases. See WP:NOTNEWS for a recent prior precedent. Edison 00:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that making this an essay is a good idea. --Kevin Murray 00:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I should clarify my reason for not wanting to do a straight relabel of this as an essay. My main concern is that I want the rejected proposal and its discussion to remain separate for historical purposes. However, would anyone be averse to making a new essay regarding shopping centers, and moving WP:MALL to that title? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I dissent. There is a fundamental difference between an opinion piece (essay) and a suggested guideline that the community didn't like (rejected proposal). If you want something to refer to in deletion debates, I would suggest pointing to WP:LOCAL (because yes, shopping malls are places of local interest) and reinvigorate discussion on that. >Radiant< 11:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I can see the need to archive the decision not to approve the guideline, so I agree. However, would it be appropriate to begin an essay at a separate location based on the work here? Perhaps a more detailed example of common deletion outcomes, specific to this topic? --Kevin Murray 12:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I would suggest that one could indeed base a guideline on common outcomes with respect to this topic (a description of facts tends to be opposed by people who dislike such facts, but such opposition tends to be ineffective). If you really want an essay on the topic, well, I'm not stopping you, but to avoid confusion the page should not have a name resembling those of the notability guidelines. >Radiant< 13:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with the last sentence. However, I'm not advocating building a guideline based on common outcomes, just for allowing a place to make note of them. I do not see it as actionable, but an archive of decisions. I'm not an proponent for this project, but don't oppose Edison's efforts. --Kevin Murray 13:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Are there actually people interested in the edit history of failed guidelines who don't know how to search the edit history? Earluer versions, with a variety of labels slapped on them, are all visible in the history. Why is it necessary to freeze it forever to "preserve the history?" Edison 14:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I expressed an opinion months ago that old guideline proposals should be deleted and if perpetual, they should be salted. At a test case XfD for notability films the overwhelming consensus was that deletion was inappropriate since an archival record would be useful to future editors. I don't agree, but am willing to work with consensus. I can support either approach in this case, but am trying to look for solutions. No strong opinions on this. --Kevin Murray 14:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not about people interested in the edit history of failed guidelines, it's about people interested in the (current) community opinion on notability for shopping centers. It's not freezing it forever, either; the people could plausibly at some point restart debate on the matter (in fact, I do advise you to do precisely that). We don't delete failed proposals because at least in theory this allows us to learn from past mistakes. >Radiant< 09:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

and changes in community opinion come slowly. what received minority support a year ago may receive greater support nowDGG (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Mall notability general discussions in AFDs

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottsdale Mall: Nominated 17 August 2007. Selected comments bearing on general issues of mall notability:

• Delete view - notability requires multiple, independent sources attesting that there is something special or different about this mall (i.e. notable) or that something newsworthy happened here. This article has none of these. Simply existing or being a large mall is not enough. Bridgeplayer 04:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• ...
  • Well, there’s no Time Magazine cover stories, but that doesn’t mean the coverage is trivial. There’s clear evidence of notability and substantial local notability, despite the lack of dedicated articles on the subject (which aren’t required anyway: “Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive”). Scottsdale Mall failed, and now the site has been redeveloped as half of a jumbo 900,000 sq. ft. open-air mall development that’s revitalized the retail sector in the area; the economic impact is substantial and apparent. Granted, it would be better to move the article to Erskine Village, and it needs a lot of other work, but there’s definite potential for a legit encyclopedia article here. Here’s an article dedicated to the development of the Scottsdale Mall site. Seems odd to cite a proposal that’s been rejected (WP:MALL) to make claims about notability. Glancing at its talk page, it appears this is part of a larger effort to knock off shopping mall articles. bobanny 22:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • More like an effort to keep the more notable ones, remove the less notable ones, and find metrics to delineate the difference. Edison 04:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I wasn't trying to imply sinister intentions, just make the process more transparent. There's no hard consensus about notability for malls and, as you indicate, this and many other AfD's are part of trying to build some sort of consensus. People should know that their vote here has implications on Wikipedia guidelines, not just whether or not this one article gets whacked. Lots of editors have expressed concern that the AfD process is skewed towards deletion, and when things like WP:MALL are evoked, with completely arbitrary criteria like 800k sq. ft. minimum for mall articles, those concerns appear to be justified, making transparency all the more important. bobanny 06:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment 800,000 square feet is not "completely arbitrary" since it is used in the ISCA definition (see Shopping mall) of a "super-regional" shopping center (in the U.S.). It was not just pulled out of a hat by an editor. The question then is whether being a "super-regional" center gives some presumption of notability, like having played on a professional baseball team does. This by no means requires deletion of regional malls (over 400,000 square feet) or even of smaller ones, but the AFD process seems to be showing that the smaller they are, the more they need to have something else going to show their notability, both because they are important to a smaller and smaller geographic dispersion of shoppers, and because the sheer number of them out there gets larger and larger. There are in the US hundreds of superregional malls and tens of thousands down to the very small ones. There are some inclusionist editors who claim in good faith that all malls (roads, cartoon characters, TV show episodes, local schools, victims, survivors, etc) are notable, and that if verifiable deserve an article, so that Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia: "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." Others, more deletionist, in good faith say that even some lesser verifiable entities should have therir articles deleted or merged to avoid Wikipedia being "an indiscriminate collection of information or a trivia collection". This important AFD process is where that crucial balance is struck, every hour of every day. Edison 21:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• I think that there is some consensus developing in the votes being tracked. I see this as any mall, past or present, that meets WP:V and WP:RS and is over 800,000 sq ft is notable. There may be even stronger support at 1,000,000 sq ft. Lower then that, it appears that notability is not a given. The only consensus I see is that in the US, the smaller the less likely the mall will be considered notable. Outside of the US notability, below the above size, is more dependent on the local impact and size may not be the primary factor in any consensus. Vegaswikian 22:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)