Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastgate 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 KEEP. -Docg 00:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Eastgate Mall

 * — (View AfD)

Article was prod'd, deleted, and is now undeleted by DavidLevinson (talk • contribs), who tells us "notability not a criteria for deletion, article is verifiable. Notability only criteria for article improvement". Per WP:5P, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory - existence is not sufficient for inclusion. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia relies on published information. Per WP:DP, notability is demonstrates by the existence of non-trivial independent reporting. Clearly notability is a requirement for inclusion per WP:5P, WP:NOT, and WP:NPOV. Google news contains no non-trivial reporting on Eastgate Mall, nor, apparently, does Google news archive. Factiva not checked. This is a procedural listing, no opinion here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. First shopping mall in a major city - Chatanooga. Interesting article as it stands - I enjoyed reading it, and I'm in Australia. As for the criteria, none of these are particularly applicable - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which includes a numerous amount of articles on shopping malls (including many this size), I can't see this content (which includes interesting information about its history) fitting in any directory (but can in an encyclopedia), and if the problem was referencing, why was this never tagged as unreferenced (thus giving people time to actually check offline (non-Google) sources, such as books about the city's history) before being nominated for deletion? Rebecca 21:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this appears to be a directory entry. Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What directory would have information like this in it? Most of it is about the history of the place. If you want it deleted, at least come up with a sensible reason. Rebecca 22:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A town directory or a directory of shopping malls. The reason is sensible. Has this been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources?  Mere existence is not sufficient, after all. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A town directory or a directory of shopping malls might mention this place, but this article would in no way fit in either of them, so that's still bunk. It has a decent claim to notability to begin with (first in a major city), and if this actually was about referencing, why was it nominated for deletion less than 24 hours after being tagged as unreferenced? There has been absolutely no time for anyone to check references apart from those on Google, such as books about the history of Chatanooga (where this would likely make an appearance). Rebecca 22:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * sofixit. The article existed for fourteen months without references, adding a tag wasn't going to produce them. Five days is ample time, if the references exist. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It was not given an unreferenced tag during that time, so it would have been very easy for it to slip by unnoticed. Five days is ample time if the sources are on Google, or somewhere else online. It is not if they're offline, since this would either mean finding in Tennessee willing to do so, or finding someone with access to an excellent library collection in the States (something of the equivalent of the National Library here in Australia). I do not have this access. So please don't pretend that sources don't exist - I've already pointed out that it's fairly likely that books on Chatanooga history would have information on the city's first mall - rather, it's just that you're not giving anyone time to actually get hold of those resources. Rebecca 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * * Using what sources? Guy (Help!) 17:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's a shopping mall. And...? --Calton | Talk 00:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rebecca's reasoning is sound. "And...?" isn't. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Presumably most malls are planned in a such way that they're not sited right next to other malls... so most malls would be the "first" mall for some locale. Not seeing encyclopedic notability being asserted here Bwithh 03:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not the first mall in "some locale" - it's the first mall in a major city. So no, most malls would not be the first mall in a major city, but this one is. Rebecca 03:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And that is different from being the first municipal dump in some way? Guy (Help!) 17:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Municipal dumps are not notable, and none have articles on Wikipedia, whereas many malls have articles. This is the first in a major city, which is a quite reasonable claim to notability. Rebecca 04:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources on Factiva, either, apparently. If no sources exist, there is no way to expand this article; since "the mall is presently (as of 2006) almost completely vacant," I presume no new non-trivial sources are likely to be generated.  This leaves the possibility of offline sources, as mentioned; therefore, delete without prejudice against recreation when and if such sources are found. Shimeru 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What is with this bias against offline sources? For something like this, Google and Factiva are lousy means of finding useful material. I've pointed out that there is a good prospect that offline sources could be found by anyone with the right resources - what is the benefit in killing the article before giving anyone a chance to fix it, rather than leaving the unreferenced tag on for a couple of months and giving someone who can the right opportunity to do so? Rebecca 04:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No bias at all. Offline sources are great.  Produce them, and then there's a basis for the article.  Keeping an unsourced article around for months on the chance that "someone" might have an offline source and be inclined to edit the article?  Um... no, thanks.  That hypothetical editor could just as easily use that hypothetical source to write a new article, however many months in the future he or she should get around to doing so.  And if he feels the old article would be useful, there's always DRV -- I imagine it'd be easy to get undeleted, since the concern is sources and he'd be producing them. Shimeru 00:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Unlike Century Plaza (which I've !voted delete on, by the way), if this really is the "first mall in a major city", I think that's enough to make it notable. However, I agree that some local sources explicitly saying this would be nice. Quack 688 10:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep; here are some sources:
 * "When the Eastgate Mall was built in the 1950s on farmland eight miles east of downtown Chattanooga, it helped drain commerce from downtown"
 * "The story of Chattanooga's Eastgate Mall sounds familiar: A 1960s-era mall that was once the place to shop, abandoned when a larger regional mall was built"
 * "Eastgate became Chattanooga's first mall when it opened in 1962."
 * --NE2 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's far from obvious that these are in any sense non-trivial reports. More usefully, this mall may be mentioned in the Natural Resources Defense Council publication Solving Sprawl. Paint me cold and uncaring, but even if it is deleted, the article can be recreated if that book turns out to be the key to finding non-trivial reports. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep article makes explicit claims of notability. Continued references to WP:NOT and claims that this is a "directory entry" are patently false, and are used persistently as excuses for deletion when individuals are unwilling to come up with an actual "reason". Alansohn 08:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. We're not a directory, and fails the "is it more notable than my socks?" test. WMMartin 17:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being the first outdoor and small regional shopping mall does not make a strong case for notability.  Vegaswikian 01:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of sources, without prejudice against recreation if and when sources are found.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why kill a perfectly good article when there is no one actually disputing anything in it? I've pointed out that it is very likely that sources exist should someone with access to the right resources take the time, and I see little point in making someone rewrite it from scratch down the line. Rebecca 11:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be fairly obvious from this AFD that there are actually people disputing it.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of those sources that showed up in the Google link NE2 provided are actually pretty good, you really should have a look. There are articles specifically dealing with its decline and urban renewal on CNN, Boston Globe, The Advocate, and On Earth (which is the quarterly journal of the NRDC mentioned above) to name a few.


 * Btw, Angus, the NRDC also talks about it on a slideshow page called How Smart Growth Solves Sprawl. The introduction to that slideshow says it's based on that exact book you mentioned. I'm convinced more than ever that this is a keeper. Quack 688 13:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that an article based on the NRDC stuff would likely pass WP:V and WP:N, but this article isn't that. Truthbringer's refs don't do much either, because they're based on showing that the dead mall was notable, whereas the case seems to be that it wasn't, but the new non-mall incarnation is notable. An article on it could be much more than a directory entry. I haven't actually given an opinion here, one way or the other, but I think my opinion leans towards "weak keep if stubbed, and start over". Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article needs sourcing, but that can be done at a more leisurely pace than the compressed five days of a deletion discussion.  The topic seems eminently appropriate to me for the encyclopedia, if for no other reason than the statement that the mall was the first mall in Chattanooga.  Stubs encourage expansion; deleted articles do not.  LowKarmaError 22:19, 3 January 2007 (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.