Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Mall


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete, all were created by, an employee of General Growth Properties, as part of a spamming campaign. All are directory entries. The only one with any claim to notability is a single incident related to an individual and can safely be covered, if it is considered appropriate per WP:BLP, in his article. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Adrian Mall


Group nomination of articles about malls created in an apparent spam campaign of. A number of articles have been speedy deleted but the tags I had placed on this one was removed by CharlotteWebb who argues that cleanup is needed, not deletion. The same thing happened for the following: It's unclear to me what sort of cleanup these may require except complete rewrites. None of these malls meet WP:CORP, none show reliable non-trivial third-party coverage. All of these articles make Wikipedia look like the Yellow Pages and I think al of them are speediable under the speedy deletion criterion A7 if not under G11. Pascal.Tesson 02:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mesilla Valley Mall
 * Santa Fe Place
 * Central Mall (Lawton, OK)
 * Bassett Place Mall
 * Central Mall (Port Arthur, TX)
 * Central Mall (Texarkana, TX)
 * Killeen Mall
 * Mall of Abilene
 * Delete per nom-- aviper2k7 02:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And these malls are worth attention by an encyclopedia why, exactly? Delete on grounds that Wikipedia is not a shopping directory. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Calton, they are just one-of-a-kind non-notable local architecture, just like high schools, bridges, parks, radio towers, public libraries, regional airports, and other structures that typically occupy categories named after the cities in question. But what rational person would attempt to apply WP:CORP to any of these? A mall is a building, not a corporation (aside from the real estate operations which do not directly interface with the public). Keep, regardless of how much re-writing need be done (of course I could always use some help in that area). — CharlotteWebb 03:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ...they are just one-of-a-kind non-notable local architecture... "One-of-a-kind"? No. "Non-notable"? Yes.
 * ...just like high schools, bridges, parks, radio towers, public libraries, regional airports, and other structures that typically occupy categories named after the cities in question. Which would be no, no, no, yes, no, no, and no. Free clue: the "If apples are kept, we must also keep all oranges" argument -- or, in your case, the "If apples are kept, we must also keep all oranges, kumquats, potatoes, vanilla beans, matzo balls, deep-fried Mars Bars, and Black & Decker cordless electric drills" argument -- has never actually convinced anyone, though it's certainly used enough by those grasping for straws absent other actual rationales. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's quite a scavenger hunt, Calton, but for a more homogeneous sample, you might try these. In the meantime, why do you feel that malls are less encyclopedic than the other examples I cited, particularly schools? All other factors being equal, a school is noteworthy on a much narrower geographic scale than a shopping mall, even to people who don't attend. — CharlotteWebb 05:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's called a reductio ad absurdum -- though honestly it required little reductio-ing, your grab-bag analogy of unrelated items merely being a more-elaborate-than-average variation on the Pokémon test. --Calton | Talk 07:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. No assertion of notability. MER-C 04:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, harmless articles if written in encyclopedic style, notable to the local communities as important social arenas. bbx 04:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:LOCAL. No assertion of encyclopedic notability. Harmful articles as they contribute to trend of turning Wikipedia into a directory. Bwithh 04:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is your concern, why are you singling out malls? — CharlotteWebb 05:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because this particular afd discussion is about a group of malls Bwithh 05:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Singling out malls in a discussion about malls? How dare you! Why not talk instead about high schools, bridges, parks, radio towers, public libraries, regional airports, oranges, kumquats, potatoes, vanilla beans, matzo balls, deep-fried Mars Bars, and Black & Decker cordless electric drills? --Calton | Talk 07:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Malls are notable in general because they (together with their tenants) are significant employers and significant parts of the economy. Moreover, crimes sometimes take place in or near malls; people are arrested at malls, perhaps for crimes committed elsewhere; mall owners enact curfews to keep teenagers out during certain hours; mall security personnel are sometimes accused of racism or other forms of misconduct; politicians and developers discuss the benefits and disadvantages associated with construction or expansion of malls. Some of the articles nominated here have been expanded since the initial nomination and may now have enough references to unambiguously demonstrate notability. Consider that a regional mall (together with its tenants) employs more people than live in a small town, and the encyclopedic nature of many malls becomes increasingly clear. Moreover, documentation of the history of a mall makes it easier to understand the forces that affected the downtown shopping areas of communities adjacent to a mall. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * are significant employers and significant parts of the economy That's an assumption on your part, especially the use of the definite "are". Moreover, crimes sometimes take place in or near malls. As sometimes happens in parking garages, garbage dumps, single-family homes, farms, liquor stores, country clubs, schoolyards, vacant lots, and corporate boardrooms. That something important -- or, as in this case, not really important -- might take place is a very flimsy rationale for notability. --Calton | Talk 07:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Malls are not notable be default, they have to show why they are notable. TJ Spyke 05:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:CORP does apply here-unless I'm wrong and any of these malls is not a corporate, for-profit venture. This I somehow doubt. Seraphimblade 06:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I really am uncomfortable with this kind of mass nomination here. Especially since there's another one from the day before yesterday.  Might there be a better way to do things?  FrozenPurpleCube 06:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In defense of the mass nomination, I am not group-nominating a bunch of unrelated malls here. These were all added in quick succession by the same user who has been almost solely creating mall articles despite numerous comments on his talk page and has been blocked for it. Pascal.Tesson 12:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all - they fail WP:CORP; WP:NOT a directory of local businesses or a good place for your sneaky ad campaign. The fact that crimes are committed there, employees work there, etc. is in no way an establishment of anything encyclopedically notable. Opabinia regalis 06:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No encyclopedic content. Looks like spam to me. Stammer 08:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:CORP among others (and yes, a mall is a for-profit venture). All the arguments listed would be arguments for keeping a WP article on every single man-made structure in every single city in every single country in the world.  Wikipedia may not be paper, but that would be silly.  And I want a Deep-fried Mars Bar now. Vizjim 09:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam, trivia, conflict of interest, and general wastage of time and effort. Truthbringertoronto's 'argument' applies only to the article on shopping malls in general, not to every little cluster of shops in the world. And if anyone cares to nominate any other malls for deletion, I'll vote 'delete' on those too, if they are just generic malls (i.e. not superlatively unique). The Crying Orc 11:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per most above delete !votes. If something's notable, the article should show it.  With sources saying so. Shimeru 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone. Rever e ndG 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per TruthbringerToronto.-- John Lake 06:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If they are of local interest, a mention of these malls can be made in the articles on the local towns where these malls are located as per WP:LOCAL.  Not notable enough to merit articles of their own under WP:CORP.  Fairsing 07:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that references were added to Killeen Mall after this AfD was created, and that there is a good chance that suitable references could be found for the other malls as well. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment this is really really weak. Maybe I can't read english but that first reference does not mention the Killeen Mall at all. The second is a 3 line newswire which is not primarily about the mall. The other references are Google maps. If anything, this strengthens my belief that this is not worth a Wikipedia article. Pascal.Tesson 04:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have updated the references. Either I made an error with the first reference or the newspaper reassigns the URLs for its most recent articles. I added the permanent URL for the article. As for the other reference, I think that the fact that the mall was being offered for sale was noteworthy, even though the owner was also trying to sell other malls at the same time. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Taking these sources in order, they appear to establish that: 1) A developer who worked on this mall is now planning to work on another mall; 2) A store in the mall has expanded its space; 3) Shoppers go to this mall for holiday shopping; 4) There are occasionally new stores; 5) The mall hires temps for the holiday season; 6) Another developer is considering purchasing the mall; and 7a-7d) The mall actually exists.  What exactly about these facts makes this mall different from any other active shopping mall?  These sources all appear to be trivial for the purpose of establishing notability.  None of this information seems encyclopedic.  Shopping malls as a class are notable, but this particular shopping mall does not appear to be a notable shopping mall. Shimeru 05:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. As was suggested at Articles_for_deletion/Westfield_Belconnen, could any individual mall deletions be deferred until we have some centralised discussion about shopping centres? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No. Especially in the present case where the creator of these articles has been blocked for apparent spamming. If the Wikipedia community somehow decides that we should keep all mall articles then hey we can always recreate this, it's not like this is containing any info not available on the mall's website. Pascal.Tesson 04:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per TT. If an obscure suburban Glasgow railway station can become Wikipedia's millionth article (and be turned into a respectable "good"-class article), then we most definitely have room for a major, regionally important shopping centres. (thanks Lefty)  Silensor 09:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If these were sourced ot the same standard I've no doubt we wouldn't be having this debate. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep All per TruthbringerTO.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 09:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.