Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semiahmoo Shopping Centre


 * 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Semiahmoo Shopping Centre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN 77-store mall. 253,201 square feet. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - HERE is coverage from the Vancouver Sun on the 2010 sale of the mall for $82M. And THIS is a release about an earlier 2008 redevelopment plan, with COVERAGE of the 2008 construction in the Vancouver Province. I guess it all comes down to whether one sees shopping malls as "town centers" or individual commercial enterprises... To me: the former and a pass of GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG.  No usable references in the article, and a search failed to find any reliable sources.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. A lack of sources at present does not make this article non-notable. Researching articles (whether found online or not available online but otherwise published) would be helpful to improve the article's notability as well as give sources indicating that notability. Creativity-II (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A lack of sources is exactly what makes it unnotable. If you believe there are sources to establish notability, find them and add them to the article.  If not, then maybe it should be userfied to give you time to do so and then return it to article space once the sources are located.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * wp:notability of a topic exists independently of the existence of an article on Wikipedia. wp:notability for a topic with an article is presumed a priori as per WP:AGF, and requires evidence to conclude that the topic is other than notable.  While it is possible to find a topic to be notable using the sources in an article, it is never possible to conclude that a topic is non-notable using sources in an article.  As per step D1 of WP:BEFORE, a minimum search requires looking at Google books and Google news archive (news.google.com/newspapers).  Unscintillating (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's correct. This has absolutely zero to do with good faith. Whether an article is notable or not is not a function of the creator's good faith -- the creator can easily have good faith but mistakenly believe a subject is notable.  No connection at all.
 * Furthermore, an article is not willy nilly presumed to be notable. Rather, a topic is presumed to merit an article if: a) it meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline; and b) it is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is Not policy. Otherwise, the subject is not presumed to merit an article.  So the "test" is whether it meets criteria "a" and "b" above -- if it does not meet the test, it is not presumed to be notable. Epeefleche (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read what I said carefully. Unscintillating (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Haven't checked into notability of this item yet, but if not kept, merge appropriate content into Surrey, British Columbia.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If we were to consider redirecting there (a possibility, perhaps), there would be almost nothing to merge. Most of the article is uncited, and the rest has been challenged per wp:v, and we shouldn't recreate uncited, challenged material. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of it is cited, though not necessary all inline in the right places. These articles keep coming back when they get deleted, five years of scanning AfD has taught me that, so its better to put something somewhere about the mall than nothing nowhere.--Milowent • hasspoken  17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see one cite. As to your second point, perhaps that is why some articles get redirected ... case in point being deleted non-notable schools.  I've always been on the fence as to that practice, for non-notable subjects. But in that case, redirect serves the same purpose as merge.Epeefleche (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * regarding Merge suggestion. If done, better destination would be South Surrey rather than Surrey, British Columbia. Canuckle (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Large commercial and residential town centre for South Surrey with impact on City of White Rock. Note that Semiahmoo Mall and Semiahmoo Town Centre might reveal a greater volume of sources as those are more commonly-used names. Canuckle (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not what is considered a large mall by wp standards -- actually, it is pretty clearly in the category of a small mall. Please see the consensus of the discussion of this subject here at "Common Outcomes; Malls", where the cut-off is per consensus clearly 500K square feet (or a higher cutoff level). Epeefleche (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Canuckle. Sources have been added, and new search terms have been found.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * None of these sources establish notability.  Semiahmoo Leasing Brochure is self-published.  Update on Semiahmoo Mall Redevelopment is in a local blog.  Zellers will stick around Canada’s three biggest cities after Target arrives is fundamentally about the Zeller's department store chain; this mall is only mentioned in passing (once, in the fifth paragraph).  Likewise, Zellers to close at Semiahmoo mall, is primarially about Zellers (despite the fact that the word "Semiahmoo" appears in the title).


 * And, lastly, while NEIGHBOURHOODS: The character and revitalization of Semiahmoo Town Centre is indeed about the mall, it is in an indiscriminate source. The editor's note at the beginning of the story says, With our new series we call "Neighbourhoods," we are coming to your area simply because we want to tell its story.  Recognizing that every one is unique, both in their character and in the challenges they face, our series will look at each area's struggles and triumphs.  This ongoing feature will showcase Surrey's dozens of neighbourhoods through stories, photos and video.  So, nobody decided to write this story because they felt there was something significant about this mall.  They wrote it because the neighborhood its in is on the list they need to cover and it was that neighborhood's turn.  That's indiscriminate.


 * -- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So they decided to write about the mall because it was not a significant element of the neighborhood? That makes no sense.  At Wikipedia, we follow the sources.  WP:IINFO is a WP:NOT issue.  When it comes to WP:RS, we are indeed indiscriminate.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See Independent_sources -- RoySmith (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if we stipulate that the second largest city in BC (pop 394,000 in 2006) is a "small town", and the media in question is a "small town newspaper", and this media indiscriminately reports "about the opening and closing of every single business in the town", and that is what is happening in this particular source, what you would get from that is an argument for a redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection to closing this as redirect to List of shopping malls in Canada -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Roy. Epeefleche (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Categorizing the Neighbourhood feature as indiscriminate is overdoing it. The series was about front-page features about topics of importance to each of the rapidly-growing communities in the City of Surrey. Quite different from a routine news brief on new small businesses. This feature contained criticism and debate from area residents. Canuckle (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Meets WP:GNG per:
 * Vancouver Sun
 * Vancouver Sun
 * The Now
 * – NorthAmerica1000 23:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, North. What leads you to designate your keep !vote weak? And would you view The Now as a paper with local coverage? Epeefleche (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Vancouver Sun has regional coverage and distribution in British Columbia, and per the Sun's article, it's "British Columbia's second most read newspaper, after The Province". NorthAmerica1000 09:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, North. What leads you to designate your keep !vote "weak"?
 * Also, would you view The Now as a paper with local coverage? Epeefleche (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My !vote is based upon sources I have found thus far. The two Vancouver Sun articles, combined with The Now, which appears to be a local Surrey news source, but one that has significant coverage about the mall in the article, leads to my present !vote. Another solid source with regional coverage that is significant, such as from The Sun, could sway me to a "keep" !vote. NorthAmerica1000 15:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that The Now (also known as "Surrey Now" is a a local coverage paper (apparently a twice-weekly, which holds itself out as a "community paper" that is "your source of local news on Surrey, North Delta and Whiterock, British Columbia, Canada."). I'm not sure I see the local paper's coverage as significant, given our focus on the audience of the source when looking for indications of notability, and our correspondingly not giving weight to coverage by local media.  And thought that you may agree, and that that may be one reason your !vote was tempered. Epeefleche (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC) interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary. Epeefleche (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I give less weight to The Now per it being a local source relative to WP:AUD. However, it does provide in-depth coverage about the topic, so this also has some weight. For example, WP:N and WP:CORP are guideline pages, and as such they are "...a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The depth of coverage is quite significant in The Now source, so I feel it has some weight in terms of providing (per WP:GNG) "significant coverage" about the topic in a meaningful manner. NorthAmerica1000 17:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting interpretation. I don't think I see it that way. Because I believe you have to look at the term "significant coverage" not in a vacuum, but in terms of where that significant coverage appears.  I would think that significant coverage is only relevant if it is in sources that are relevant for purposes of determining notability.  So ... a 20-page advertisement, though substantial, or a dozen of them, would not be the "significant coverage" that weighs towards notability.  Similarly, a 200-page securities prospectus about the mall, though certainly "in-depth coverage about the topic" (the test you supply above), would not be the "significant coverage" that weighs towards notability. And 25 in-depth articles from local media would not by themselves be sufficient ... in the absence of significant coverage from non-local media. Epeefleche (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep given the level of coverage. --Rob (talk) 17:50, 24 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.