Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Promenades Drummondville


 * 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   delete. WP:OUTCOMES is only a rough guide as to likely outcomes of deletion discussions; it is descriptive, not prescriptive. And it is not even clear if it meets the cutoff, since different people have different interpretations of it. Ultimately, what matters are the sources, which this does not have. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Promenades Drummondville

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN mall. We don't generally retain stand-alone articles for malls of this size, absent unusual circumstances not present here. Prod was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a "regional shopping center" as per, which places it in the range of malls that are considered "larger" as per WP:OUTCOMES.  Distinguishing characteristics are the large number of stores and anchors for the size, and being the dominant shopping center for the population area.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Common outcomes states: "Larger malls are generally considered notable. Very small malls, strip malls, and individual shops are generally deleted unless significant sourcing can be found." What was communicated to me by one sysop was that the dividing line was 1 million sf, and the other sysop said he believed it was 500,000 sf. This mall is far below both those cut-offs, at 333,615 sq ft, and in fact one of the smallest size malls I've seen reflected on the Project. Being a "regional" shopping center (rather than a super-regional shopping center) is simply a designation that puts it with other centers that typically have 400,000 sf. -- and, as indicated, malls that size are typically not considered notable at the Project. Epeefleche (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you remember Articles for deletion/Vasundhara Metro Mall. I tried adding up the floor-by-floor areas, and only came up with something a bit over 100,000 sq ft.  So we can start to set the pattern with a weak claim that the bottom end for the keeping of malls at AfD is at 100,000 sq ft.  Whoever told you 500,000 or 1,000,000 I can guess gave you no verifiable evidence.  I've looked at enough recent AfDs to know that the 1,000,000 is a fiction.  We have numerous articles with "smaller" malls for good reason.  This 355,000 sq ft mall claims 4,000,000 visitors per year.  Regional shopping centers are widely known in the locale.  Take a look at Articles for deletion/Harlequin Shopping Centre for an example of a nom who said in 2014 that 1,000,000 is normative, but in 2013 got zero support to delete a mall of size 727,000.  As for 500,000, this is getting closer, but I'm not aware of good examples of AfDs that deleted malls of between 300,000 and 500,000, and I can cite two recent AfDs that were kept.  The definition at allbusiness.com is a verifiable benchmark for 300,000 sq ft, suggesting that a "larger" shopping center is also more then 300,000 sq ft.  And the word "regional" means something in the real world.  I agree with your premise that malls at the smaller end of this spectrum probably need more attention.  This particular mall as I've already said has distinguishing characteristics.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On the subject of what the size of a mall is that is deemed notable, absent unusual RS coverage, to solicit input from editors other than the two of us I've asked for their input here. Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On the subject of soliciting input User:VMS Mosaic and User:Dough4872 probably want to weigh in here. Me5000 (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The standard as best as I can determine is...Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. From WP:GEOFEAT. I have not had a chance to look around but this is likely to come down to that "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources." -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree with the premise of the nomination that malls this size don't normally get kept at AfD, e.g., Articles for deletion/Prince of Orange Mall. Many malls this size will pass WP:GNG.  Some digging into French sources may do so here.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - thanks, Epeefleche, for opening the discussion here and at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes. As I wrote there, "there is also a strong consensus that less than 500k sq feet is too small. Whether the dividing line is 600k or 1 million is not settled yet." Bearian (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Under this consensus, this mall fails.  Delete. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I think there is an effort underway to lower the inclusion bar a bit below my comfort zone. I don't have a hard number in mind in terms of sqft, though I think I would lean towards one million. But this mall is well below any number I'd be comfortable with. And then there is the question of significant coverage mentioned in GEOFEAT. In the end however, the bottom-line is that I am not seeing anything here that makes this mall stand out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Decisions at AfD have varied widely, as with most types of articles: you can find ;anything in the AfD archives.I suspect the actual factor is how many people shows up, and who they are.  My view has been and remains that merely regional centers in the US and any other developed country  are not notable unless there are special factors involved. I do not see any here. The sources, as usual for such articles, are very local and routine, and can be interpreted however one pleases to get the desired result.  DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:OUTCOMES. This is a Regional Shopping Center per the definition here. Me5000 (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it relevant that per that definition it falls into a category of malls that are as low as 300,000 sf? Are you suggesting that WP:Outcomes mandates that we keep all malls as small as 300,000 sf? I don't see the connection between your two sentences. Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well WP:OUTCOMES is very vague simply stating "larger" and should be more specific, I'll admit that. Until it is changed to at least listing square footage however, we must interpret it ourselves. Using the defintion at allbusiness, "Regional Shopping Center" and "Super Regional Shopping Center" are what I consider large and "Community Shopping Center", "Neighborhood Shopping Center" and "Strip Shopping Center" are what I consider small. Me5000 (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be setting a breathtakingly low bar for inclusion. However, as noted above community consensus seems to have come down pretty firmly against malls of less than 500,000 sqft. Where the line is drawn above that is not clear. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The evidence above is two malls, one of size a bit above 100,000, and one of size between 300,000 and 400,000, and neither was deleted or merged. Unscintillating (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What Ad Orientem said. Furthermore, it is instructive to understand two things.  First, "Common Outcomes" refers to the typical outcomes of past AfD discussions for some commonly nominated subjects; none of the subjects of common outcomes pretend that there may not be, for some atypical reason, an atypical exception.  But no reason for such an exception is present here, and nobody has even suggested that one exists.  Second, as the nomination itself states, "We don't generally retain stand-alone articles for malls of this size, absent unusual circumstances not present here." The fact that unusual circumstances were present elsewhere does not change the fact that they are not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I just don't see the harm in keeping articles about shopping malls nor do I see any general consensus on limits on deleting them. 18:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "I don't see the harm in keeping it" is not a valid reason to !vote for keeping it -- that thinking could be applied in nearly every AfD discussion, if it were compelling. Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is my vote Epeefleche, There is no general consensus as to what makes a shopping mall notable, (Example: Size, Shape, Age etc.) so that being said, "I don't see the harm in keeping it." But we shall see what the votes say?22:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Understand that it is your !vote. And that we shall see what the consensus is.  But just fyi, for !votes to be given weight by the closer, they have to be based on wp policy, for example GNG (which does not seem to support retention here), which shows the article to be notable per wp standards.  Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - the issue here is WP:GNG, not its size. In its current condition, it fails WP:GNG.  If it is bought to WP:GNG, then I would say Keep.  WP:OUTCOMES is based on size (500,000 appears to be reasonable), but it is only a reason for keeping, not a reason for deletion. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; The main policy and guideline-based arguments given to delete are failure to meet general notability (WP:N / WP:GNG). Arguments over its size are irrelevant unless secondary sources can verify the notability thereof (WP:V). Furthermore, common outcomes at AfD (WP:OUTCOMES) is a descriptive essay of what someone, in their original research or personal opinion thinks happens or happened at some point in AfD history&mdash;it is not a consensus-backed policy or guideline. On top of the issue of WP:GNG, the article in its current form is a directory entry, and, failing a clear assertion of and verification of reliably-sourced notability, it is also in violation of that policy, too. Notability (geographic features) is also not a policy or guideline yet. On top of all of that, we don't take our hints of what's notable from a glossary section on "allbusiness.com," nor do I personally believe we should start to. Ever. -- slakr \ talk / 00:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm looking above and I have yet to see any editors who have provided evidence that this topic fails WP:GNG. Confusing WP:V and WP:N is just that.  WP:V is a core content policy.  I just now clicked on Google books and I immediately saw two relevant books.  This is exactly why we have a WP:BEFORE guideline, that ensures that we will not venture off into deletion discussions without minimal evidence.  We recently had a deletion discussion on another mall at Sumter Mall that started off without WP:BEFORE, and led to a DRV and now a second AfD.  Just as there, we do not have WP:BEFORE here, so we have a fractured discussion.  How can we expect the world at large to take our discussions seriously if administrators don't support our own guidelines?  On another point, at Wikipedia, we follow the sources, so your personal opinion does not stand above allbusiness.com.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, the size of the complex is irrelevant, what is relevant here is that there don't seem to be any reliable sources that offer more than routine coverage to this mall. If it doesn't satisfy the GNG, it doesn't matter if it's ten million square feet in size.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC).
 * "I don't like size as a criteria" and "Don't seem to be...sources" is the basis of your !vote? Which carries more weight?  Evidence that we normally keep malls of this size, or your argument?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:OUTCOMES is an essay and the "malls" aspect seems to be heavily contested based on this discussion, so I don't ascribe any serious weight to it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Your argument and my argument agree that we have not looked for sources. Your argument is opposed to metric-based evidence, and my argument presents metric-based evidence using industry standards.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't keep articles based on industry standards. We keep them based on wikipedia policy.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Another non-notable mall.  Specifically, fails WP:GNG because I can't find any reliable, independent, secondary sources to demonstrate notability.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional comment - I suspect the only way this will be kept is if someone actually does the work to source it even if all the sources are local. Claims that sources exist is not proof that sources exist. WP:OUTCOMES applies to larger malls which at least meet WP:V. While it is open to debate if this is a "larger" mall, at this point it does not meet WP:V because it has not been shown that sources exist. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are referring to WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable and relies on primary sources. 1292simon (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2014 (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.