Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurel 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 no consensus.  Citi Cat   ♫ 03:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Laurel Mall

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, tiny 70s mall. From the article text, it sounds like it's pretty run-down and struggling financially. Only source is the promotional site run by its current owner/developer. Thomjakobsen 12:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Without substantial third-party sources it fails WP:V and WP:N. Jakew 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've been there; it's just a mall. Mangoe 14:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 14:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 14:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Do NOT Delete As a resident of Laurel, MD, I have followed the saga of the mall. It is slated for major renovations and the centerpiece of the downtown area, which will also include restaurants and residential areas. The opinion of the original petitioner is inaccurate. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information to the masses, not censor it.--Mrferrante 23:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could be worked on quite a bit, but as far as WP:V goes, it had an entire Washington Post article written about it. shoy  00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment But that doesn't establish notability: you'd expect the WP to include coverage on a major local redevelopment, so by that argument all malls are notable as we could source articles announcing their construction. From WP:OUTCOMES: While the notability of large malls is in dispute, strip malls and individual shops are not generally notable. By the article's own admission, this is not a large mall, and its lack of notability among local shoppers seems to be what has triggered its planned redevelopment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomjakobsen (talk • contribs) 00:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A Washington Post article about it does establish notability. Citing the trend described in the non-binding WP:OUTCOMES does not negate a topic that passes the core WP:NOTABILITY guideline whereas if something is the subject of secondary reliable sources, notability is established (in this case, the source is very reliable).  The deletion of non-major malls in WP:OUTCOMES applies to those malls that have no reliable sources written about them. --Oakshade 21:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the reliability of the WP, but it's the local newspaper for this mall. I would imagine that every mall in the world generates some local press coverage when it's built or pulled down, so wouldn't this mean that all malls are notable? Or only malls that happen to be in the locality of a big-name newspaper? Thomjakobsen 22:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Local" newspapers are reliable sources. Besides, the Washington Post's market covers a vast area; not only Washingdon, DC, but the large heavily populated Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area.  Even in Baltimore, it has a high subscription rate.  Not every mall in a given region is covered by their respective newspaper(s), but this one was. There's no escaping the fact that this passes WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade 22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But I'm guessing that every mall does generate coverage in the local press, especially at the start and end of their existence. Given enough time, we could track down such articles for every single mall that's been deleted as "non-notable". It seems arbitrary to give this non-notable mall a free pass because its local press happens to be a respected publication with an online archive. Thomjakobsen 22:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the most ass-backward thing I've heard all week, dude. Burntsauce 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thomjakobsen, every mall doesn't have their local (major) newspaper writing about it. You're still avoiding the fact that it passes WP:NOTABILITY as it's the primary subject of secondary reliable sources like the Washington Post and the Associated Press.  WP:NOTABILITY doesn't discriminate against a "reliable source" because it's "local" to the topic. --Oakshade 23:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's where we disagree, then. My hunch is that every mall does get local coverage for building/demolition/huge revamp events, and that the WP article is of that nature (it's in there for local interest, rather than the big stories on which the WP's reputation is built. the NY Times wouldn't cover this mall's story, for example). WP:N mentions that depth and nature of coverage of sources needs to be considered, and I think that an article about a local mall getting largely pulled down and replaced isn't the kind of article that establishes notability, otherwise virtually all malls would be notable. It's a subjective judgment; reading the main article here screams "non-notable" to me, which is why I'm unconvinced by the WP source. Thomjakobsen 02:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post article is three pages, very in depth and the nature of the coverage is exactly about the mall. Not making this up, but I don't think I've ever seen such in depth coverage in a single article about a mall before (that actually screams notability).  Any way you look at it, it passes the letter and spirit of WP:NOTABILITY. I hate to say this, but your arguments for deleting this article are looking more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than being based on our actual guidelines. --Oakshade 03:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Renovations include expansion. Read the External Links and you will see that. No, it is not a HUGE mall. But it is not tiny either. The mall flourished through the 80's and early 90's. Nowhere in the article does it say "lack of notability among local shoppers." The mall was in decline because of mismanagement. Local papers have been covering this for years. Back your argument up with factual information, not words like "seem" which are opinion based. As for it's notability, repeated newspaper articles in the Washington,DC area and Baltimore papers over a number of years is noteable enough for this entry to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrferrante (talk • contribs) 01:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment References in the local press do not establish notability. By "notability" we mean whether it is sufficiently worthy of notice to justify its own encylopedia article. There are thousands of malls, and only a fraction of those count as notable. This one, despite references in the local press - which probably applies to every single mall in the world - doesn't seem to be noteworthy compared to all the other small malls out there. The Washington Post article seems to support this: The halls of Laurel Mall are lined with vacant storefronts. Some are empty shells; others are masked by new drywall and paint. Even the food court was deserted on a recent afternoon. And the enormous parking garage that sits on Route 1 and is supposed to serve as the mall's grand entrance is almost never full, a testament to decades of neglect and the fickleness of retailers. Thomas P. Falatko looked at the property and asked the tough question: Should Laurel Mall even exist? Another of the linked articles, on the proposed name change, talks of the "stigma" associated locally to the name "Laurel Mall". If "the notability of large malls is in dispute" - presumably thriving, well-maintained, profitable ones - what claim for notability does this one have? Perhaps the new "Laurel Commons" will be notable in the future, but that isn't scheduled for completion until late 2009. Thomjakobsen 01:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Local press articles do establish notability as they are independent secondary reliable sources, as stipulated in WP:N... A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'... The Washington Post and the Associated Press are major national news organizations anyway.  Even if the Washington post calls it a "small mall", it's still notable by our guidelines as a major secondary source has written about it, critically or not.--Oakshade 21:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. No assertion of notability.  WP:ILIKEIT is not reason to establish notability. Vegaswikian 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the Washington Post has written an entire article about it, that is notable enough for my standards.  Otherwise a merge to the appropriate locality will suffice.  Burntsauce 22:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Washington Post doesn't usually write about malls, but it did about this one and that's a major case in establishing notability. --Oakshade 21:38, 11 September 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.