Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayberry 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 of the debate was no consensus to delete, includes accounting for unsigned comments. W.marsh 16:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mayberry Mall
Non-notable local mall. See also Eden Mall and Pennrose Mall, which were also previously nominated for AfD. Note that like those other two articles, this article was created by and edited by the North Carolina vandal (using multiple sockpuppets), which however is not in itself an argument for deletion. -- Curps 21:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - the recent spate of mall AfD's is an example of an anti-mall cultural bias, as are any anti-mall precedents in deletion policy. I strongly feel that Wikipedia is being kept from covering many massive, notable, quasi-permanent commercial institutions (many of which are important features in the lives of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people - entire communities!) simply because of cultural bias.  I am not a huge mall-lover myself, but most large malls are more notable than many of the small museums that wikipedia covers, and are treated differently mainly because they are seen as distasteful or dislikeable.  Wikipedia should not censor or delete an entire category of information (we already cover a number of malls), information that is relevant and important to an electronic encyclopedia, simply because some people find that subject a bit crass.  Covering individual malls is not comparable to, say, covering individual Wal-Mart stores (which should not be done), because each mall is different.  The layout, location, and composition of a mall is important geographic and cultural information.  Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 21:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obviously we should be open-minded to any attempt to document notability for any subject.  Without passing judgement on the question of whether malls as a whole are unfairly discriminated against in wikipedia, we have to decide about individual articles about individual malls.  I see nothing in this article that suggests that this mall warrants an article.  Bucketsofg 22:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that this mall is less notable than many that have recently been targeted in the AfD blitz, but I think that it is still notable, as it includes 23 stores. Also, being located in a small community, it is likely a commercial center of that community - and, as such, as important as a local state park or something on that idea. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bucketsofg. Slowmover 22:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, malls are not inherently notable and this one has nothing special. I know I shouldn't keep firing my mousegun into the artillery barrage of Wikipedia holy wars like this, I just can't help myself. We need a Wikiproject to save people like me from myself. Lord Bob 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep' as per above ~Linuxerist L / T 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into the town's article would be my choice here, but if that absolutely cannot happen then Keep Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I guess I'm puzzled over why Wikipedia needs a two sentence entry on a shopping mall, especially since the shopping mall already has an official site on the web.  I can't think of a single compelling reason to keep this entry. Brian G. Crawford 23:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with the town it is in, since malls don't tend to pick themselves up and run off to another town when they're bored. Average Earthman 00:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If you've seen one mall, you've seen 'em all. D e nni &#9775;  01:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into the article for the town. BryanG 02:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. is right about there being a bias against commercial, contemporary or pop culture related topics, but this is a mall in a town with less then 9,000 people in a county with only about 70,000. I don’t think there enough people for a major mall. It provably belongs in the article on the town it’s in. Seano1 06:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge notable, though not as much as Eden Mall or especially Pennrose Mall.Reidkins 02:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This user's only contributions are votes in the three mall AfDs. -- Curps 05:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just being a mall isn't enough for notability, and this doesn't claim anything beyond it. - Andre Engels 09:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town square. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them. This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic. -- JJay 11:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How many Main Street or Town Squares moved from town to town in the past? They should be merged because they are a feature of the town - saying they warrant seperate articles is like saying that we should have a separate article about Pele's right and left feet because he used them to score so many goals. Average Earthman 13:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your analogy with Pele, however I do believe that, to a large extent, Main Streets and Town Squares have moved- into the malls. As you know, malls also drain customers from much larger areas than the immediate towns they are located in. Finally, I guess we could merge every article on a building, highway, school, museum, stadium, team, mall, company, etc. into a jumbo article on the town in which they are located. While we are at it, we should probably merge every player bio into the sports team they play for. Then when that becomes unmanageable, we can edit all the discussions of these things in the Town/Team articles down to single line mentions. Then we can give up on trying to be a comprehensive, internet-age encyclopedia. -- JJay 14:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They didn't move, they were replaced (unless someone actually dug up the entire street, moved it to the edge of town, and put a roof on it). It's like Pele retiring and someone else playing for Brazil. I think the analogy is that a particular small mall, or a main street, is part of one specific town and no other (in the way that nobody other than Pele has ever scored a goal by kicking the ball with Pele's foot, so no matter how impressed you are with Pele's foot, or how many times Pele's foot propelled the ball into the back of the net, it's still Pele's foot so doesn't have its own article, as you can't really say that much about it, and what you can say relates directly to Pele). Very large malls have a life and reputation of their own of course, but this isn't a very large mall. 128.243.220.21 11:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added info concerning the infamous murder that took place at Mayberry. It's somewhat ironic given the name of the mall and the fact that the murder weapon was bought in the mall shortly before the crime took place. -- JJay 21:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as a collection of stores is neither encyclopaedic nor notable. JJay's arguments are a wonderful encouragement to improve the mall article, but hardly provide reason why each and every mall is either encyclopaedic or notable. It should be mentioned in the article on the town, and maybe even its own setion, but is not worth an article of its own. Wikipedia is not Everything2.    Proto    ||    type    13:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete most malls and other individual builings. If a building has a particular significance or history, that's another issue, but having articles on buildings merely because they exist is the cruftiest cruft that ever did cruft.  Friday (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely.Apriyay 15:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * user's first edit. Lord Bob 16:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep great article. may need expansion though!
 * unsigned vote by Evil Kro, his second edit. Lord Bob 01:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am utterly astounded that anyone could look at Wikipedia and think it has an anti-pop-culture bias. I wouldn't say it has an anti-mall bias either, but that's probably much harder to determine.  Anyone who wants to discuss notability of buildings in general should look at Wikipedia_talk:Notability.  So far consensus seems to be to apply WP:CORP to them.  To me, trying to create and maintain a list of which stores are at which mall would be a project for WikiPhonebook, if there was such a thing.  Friday (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. What in the article makes it encylopedic?  Vegaswikian 06:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Encyclopedias are reference books that deal with all fields of knowledge (the word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning general or well-rounded education). Since Wikipedia doesn't have very many size constraints, we can include a lot of stuff. Also, I'm not sure it's worth destroying someone else's work and alienating that person--who could be a contributor to other articles as well--over an issue as uncertain as notability. Something increadibly notable to a physicist may be non-notable to a chemist, for example. In other words, I don't see the point of this vote. What will deleting the article help?--Primetime 21:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How much did you donate in the last fundraising appeal? Average Earthman 00:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * $50. (Go here: --I listed my user name in the comment column.) And you?--Primetime 00:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one advocating unlimited expansion. At least you have the decency to put your money where your mouth is, most of the people advocating this I've asked don't. Average Earthman 10:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that sounds sarky - my complaint was that a lot of people who are advocating unlimited expansion don't appear to be aware that there actually is a cost to it. I'm glad you are. Average Earthman 15:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. You're fine, Average Earthman. Thank you for the kind words.--Primetime 15:38, 24 March 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.