Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Springs 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. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Indian Springs Mall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A dead mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. Sources in the article are a blog, a dead link, a facebook page, and an entry in an index of shopping centers.  // Timothy ::  talk  06:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  06:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  06:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  06:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

* Delete per whiteguru.  Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon? 15:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fine article. Hooker82 (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable mall which has since been demolished. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is not temporary. Passes WP:GNG—-Paul McDonald (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here is a list of the sources. None of these supports either WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD.

Newspapers.com search revealed nothing other than routine coverage any mall would receive; announcements, events, advertising, etc. This is an everyday average mall. It is not notable.  // Timothy ::  talk  16:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly another WP:POINT argument from TimothyBlue. WP:ROTM is not policy. The sources present do establish notability, and the only other people calling for deletion are just saying WP:NOTNOTABLE and WP:PERNOM, neither of which is valid nor gives any proof to notability or lack thereof. The site of the mall is a topic of discussion long after the mall became defunct, indicating that it had a long lasting impact. Buildings do not cease being notable when they are torn down. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment nice research TPH, these and other links should be added to the article. This supports that there is an editing issue but not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply : You state "The sources present do establish notability" Tell all of us here and the closer, which of the sources present establish notability?
 * As for the two sources you mention
 * talk about is the "vacant lot of Indian Springs Mall turned into a drive-thru pickup location for Harvesters to give food to families" - How does this make the mall notable? It doesn't talk about the mall. It talks about a vacant lot where a mall used to be and an event taking place there. It doesn't say anything about the mall.
 * This talks about plans for what might happen to a vacant lot where the mall used to be. It doesn't say anything about the mall.
 * Tell everyone and the closer: What about the mall do the above sources state that establish notability?  // Timothy ::  talk  18:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep 700,000 sqft enclosed mall open for 30 years, clearly notable. Here is one article discussing it in depth . MB 19:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply : Since you wrote, "discussing it in depth", tell everyone and the closer what indepth information does this article have about the mall? Because when I read it, this is not an article about the mall. It is an article about the hope of tearing the abandoned mall down and redeveloping the property into something completely different. Also you state, "700,000 sqft enclosed mall open for 30 years, clearly notable" tell everyone and the closer what guideline or policy are you basing this on? Just a gentle reminder about WP:DISCUSSAFD.  // Timothy ::  talk  19:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Concern I am concerned that the table above is approaching placing undue weight on an argument. I have no issue discussing sources (that's central to AFDs) but I am concerned that the use of a table with background colors and icons is putting undue weight on the argument. In addition, it fails to address other sources as they are brought forward and participation in AFD then becomes more weighted for someone's ability to make a better-looking table than upon the presentation of the best argument.  I guess it feels like it's approaching the same kind of thing (although not exactly) that Adjectives in your recommendations is also seeking to avoid.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply These tables are used all the time in AfDs. There is an easy to use script to create them here: User:DannyS712/SATG. They are an easy way to evaluate sources and anyone can use them.   // Timothy ::  talk  02:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone can use them who also knows JavaScript and is familair with them. As it stands now, it's showing a clear one-sided view.  I've been around AFDs for over a decade, never seen it.  Sure I haven't seen them all, but it looks unfair.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, more then enough reliable sources to establish notability on the first page of a Google Search alone. Nominator appears to have not done research. Esw01407 (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The sources above and in the article are all routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. They do not establish notability. Every mall will have lots of routine coverage because they seek it out as advertising. If this type of coverage makes a mall notable, then every mall will be notable. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  02:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Feature articles are WP:NOTROUTINE. —Paul McDonald (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:ROUTINE does not apply to places and structures, solely to events. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:ROUTINE does not apply to buildings. This mall clearly passes GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I added a lot of coverage, mostly from the 1995-1997 era. The Kansas City Star only goes back to 1995 on ProQuest. I imagine there is comparable coverage available before then, but I don't have access to it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The dead KMBC-TV link has been fixed with an archived version. It seems to be discussing about a revitalization project for the dead mall. Leaving the evaluation of if/how it supports WP:GNG to other editors. Jumpytoo Talk 04:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment for closer: since there is an RfC currently under discussion at AfD about what is considered proper sourcing for determining mall notabiity, it may be worth holding these open until that is finished. If a close is made, it would be very helpful for the RfC if you could explain how you evaluated the sources in terms of notability, routine, run of the mill coverage, and how you feel voting and !voting influenced this AfD. Thank you, <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  07:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Switching to Keep after looking at the comments made by others. <b style="font-family:Kristen ITC"> Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon?</b> 09:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.