Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia Mall (Missouri) (4th nomination)


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

The result was keep. Obvious Keep, As an aside I notice the 3 previous AFDs were all by this nominator .... So stop constantly nominating the article as it's getting rather disruptive. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 01:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Columbia Mall (Missouri)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not seeing the notability here. Out of the sources we have 1 wp:primary source, 2 directory listings, a book with one sentence about the mall, an article with half a sentence about the mall, 1 source about an arcade opening, 2 sources about an H&M opening, 3 sources about traffic around the mall and one halfway decent source. The article only has one source good source. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - cited sources plus 'Further reading' pass WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Based on the size and scope of the mall, the sources already in the article and in further reading, notability is established. Alansohn (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Alansohn How do the sources establish notability? In what way are any of those sources wp:significant coverage of the mall? Me5000 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per both the sources in the article that combined passe the threshold of "significant" and the scope of the mall. --Oakshade (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Oakshade Could specify which 2 sources are wp:sigcov of the mall and clarify in what way they are significant coverage? Additionally, 2 sources are not enough to pass WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1 source could be enough to pass WP:GNG if the coverage is significant enough ("multiple sources are generally expected"). If you'd like to change WP:GNG to require 3 or more sources no matter how in-depth a lesser number is, you need to make your case on the GNG talk page. --Oakshade (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oakshade You avoided the main question: "Could specify which 2 sources are wp:sigcov of the mall and clarify in what way they are significant coverage?" Me5000 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a combination of all the coverage from multiple sources that amounts to significant coverage. WP:GNG makes no requirement that 1 source out of many be extremely in-depth.--Oakshade (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oakshade Could you clarify the 2 in-depth sources and specify how they are in-depth coverage of the mall? Additionally per WP:GNG significant coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail". How does a combination of passing mentions/sources not actually about the mall amount to significant coverage per that definition? Me5000 (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be a single source that addresses the topic directly and in detail (one actually does, so there you go). If a combination of sources culminates in significant coverage, then it passes WP:GNG.  If want to get all WP:LAWYER and specifically WP:GAMETYPE and demand that all sources go in detail, then so be it.  We know you've been trying furiously for over a year to get this article deleted, but consenus has repeatedly disagreed with you and your interpretation of the guidelines. You need to move on.--Oakshade (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oakshade I have already asked you 3 times to specify the 2 in-depth sources and clarify how they are in-depth coverage of the mall. Why do you keep avoiding this simple question? Me5000 (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is become WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Me5000, seriously, move on.--Oakshade (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oakshade So you refuse to answer? Why? I just want you to clarify your original statement, I see no reason to continually avoid the question unless you realized can't answer it because you just made it up which would also explain why it was so vague in the first place. Me5000 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. You miss-read my original statement.  I didn't mean "both" as is in 2 specific sources, I meant "both" as in a combination of two factors - 1. The combined coverage passing the threshold of "significant." 2. The scope of the mall.--Oakshade (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oakshade I did indeed misread your statement. But what I still don't understand is where the in-depth coverage is. Which sources do you think are in-depth? To quote the first source that isn't a primary source all it says about the mall is "Columbia Mall at Stadium and Bernadette Streets is the city's largest, but Columbia also has a thriving downtown district centered near Providence road and East Broadway." That is probably one of the worst sources I have ever seen and it is questionable whether it should even be used in the article. That is about the quality of all the sources used. Then you scroll down to the further reading section and you have these somewhat long sources that appear to be about the mall, but upon reading them two are simply about "Traffic Development Districts" and their attempts to expand/improve roads. While I will give you the source from the columbiabusinesstimes.com is the best source used, it is still just about development in the general area with very little about the mall overall. So in what way do you think there is significant coverage of this mall considering the quality of the sources used like I explained above and which sources do you think are in-depth about the mall and why? Me5000 (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2015 (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.