Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methuen 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. Content added during the AFD and subsequent to the source assessment has rescued it. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Methuen Mall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An extinct mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "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." 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.  // Timothy ::  talk  03:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  03:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  03:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  04:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 10:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, easily found tons of sourcing in the Boston Globe. Notability is not temporary, and many of the sources discuss such factors as the shift in shopping patterns once a competitor opened, and the reuse of the property by later venues. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply and Question, can you post the sources you found for WP:V. Coverage such as "factors as the shift in shopping patterns once a competitor opened, and the reuse of the property by later venues." that simply mention the mall closing do not show notability. There needs to be coverage that shows the mall has historic, social, economic, or architectural importance per WP:NBUILD or meets WP:GNG. Here is the run down on the current sources:

Nothing here shows the mall has historic, social, economic, or architectural importance per WP:NBUILD or meets WP:GNG.  // Timothy ::  talk  12:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Large malls are notable. Here is one article from 1991 . It's likely easy to find more. MB 23:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sure you can find lots of routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. These do not establish notability.  // Timothy ::  talk  02:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not clear to me why every mall that ever existed should have a Wiki article, which is what would happen if standard local coverage of new/closing stores or existence in a town's business directory was sufficient for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am working on expanding this. The mall has gotten literally decades of coverage in the Boston Globe and elsewhere. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Article has been greatly expanded and merged with The Loop (Methuen, Massachusetts), its current name. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Expanded article clearly shows notability and quality Pokemonprime (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added some additional coverage from the Boston Globe and other papers. Again, I recommend that TimothyBlue use ProQuest as part of his WP:BEFORE check and source tables. There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources (e.g. multiple ~1000-word articles in the Boston Globe). FYI, TenPoundHammer did contact me on my talk page about this one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that some of the coverage I identified were lead articles for various sections of the Boston Globe. E.g. this story (only about mall), lead in real estate; this story (in which mall features prominently), lead in business; this story (only about mall), lead in real estate; etc. There may be others; this is only ones I happened to notice while trawling for online versions of certain news articles. Anyways, this clearly was an important place in the region. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:49, 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,  // Timothy ::  talk  09:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You've already been told that's not a valid reason to keep the AFD open. Let this one run its course. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That was the opinion of a single individual, not a consensus. At ANI it was stated, "You and others suggested, reasonably, that some the guidelines for malls should be developed and clarified, and in fact constructive discussion about a potential WP:SNG is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC on shopping malls and notability guidelines.". Let the closer have all of the information and they can decide. There is no hurry to close these only to have them reopened at DR as a result of the RfC.  // Timothy ::  talk  20:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering that the consensus is extremely obvious by now to keep this article (especially since the article was vastly expanded during the AFD), there'd be no gain in keeping the discussion open longer. The RFC discussion should be contained within that thread alone, so as not to distract and unnecessarily bog down other processes. The relist happened a week ago, so with the consensus now clear, this should be closed right about now anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.