Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sequoia 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   merge to Visalia, California. The delete comments are convincing. and the sources that have been added are purely local, so a delete appears to be the outcome here. However, there does seem to be some opinion that the information may be of interest to people, so Polarpanda's suggestion that this be merged with Visalia, California seems appropriate.  SilkTork  *YES! 02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sequoia Mall

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable, with only an old demolished movie theater/re as any kind of claim. Quite possibly an WP:OVERCOME type of article. Rationale for discussion should be fairly obvious. Actually, I have deja vu posting this, for some reason. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete small shopping mall of 220,000 sq ft, below the usual threshold. The coverage is not substantial enough for notability. This article was the product of a class project about the town, and they should have received better guidance about what would be likely to stay in Wikipedia--then the work would have helped the encyclopedia, and been a lasting credit to them, rather than being wasted.   DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the usual threshold? JBsupreme (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm sure someone from the mall project will be able to save it and improve it more since that is their speciality. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep It's not a bad start, and given the turmoil in the shopping market world, I'm sure there's some proper expansion to go here. I added one reference. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added a reference. I think that it was notable when it was built circa 1975, and had the same impact on its community that a much larger mall would have today. To the extent that size is a factor in establishing notability, it needs to be understood in the context of notability when it was built and the population of the area that it serves. I think many of today's dead or dying malls were notable when they were built, even though they ultimately failed as businesses. - Eastmain (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm just not seeing it, and it still looks like a WP:OVERCOME issue. All 'keep' comments I know have been in complete good faith, but none actual improve the article or even support its cause. Keep based on assuming it will be rescued? Keep because the retail industry is currently in bad shape? Keep because it might have been notable when it opened despite having zero information to suggest this? Notable because of a cheesy Halloween setup one year? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'll see your WP:OVERCOME and raise you a WP:POTENTIAL. We're looking at an industry that's going through consolidation, bankruptcies, and other extreme economic stress, with some major operators like General Growth Properties going recently through the "largest bankruptcy in US history".  It's going to take some number of years for the story to work its way out.  Wiping out the record of a property this size doesn't add to Wikipedia.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification: This isn't a new retail property though, so if it was never notable, WP:POTENTIAL is a 'keep' per a theoretical regrowth? I didn't nominate it because it was up for sale... that's entirely unrelated and I've deliberately kept any mention of financial troubles away from the AfD since it's a red herring on notability. I'm saying it's simply not notable. Period. Timeframe and money aside. Not that it's recently become non-notable, or that while up for sale kills its notability... since notability is not time-specific in Wikipedia guidelines, those would be invalid rationales. Even if it were closed and demolished by now it could never be nominated over that. To keep up the using words to mark "official" talking points, I'll go with WP:CRYSTAL for we can't assume it'll become notable at some point in the future, and per WP:ISNOT such that we don't collect lists of empty retail space for future expansion. If we have a set retail space that's collectively used for "notability", that would work. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete 800,000 square feet of gross leasable area is the cutoff for a superregional mall, which usually gets kept, This one is a pipsqueak about one quarter of that, and does not seem to have the significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to satisfy WP:N. Not every little neighborhood shopping center needs or deserves an encyclopedia article. See WP:MALL the failed notability standard for malls, which has on its talk page a tabulation of 89 similar AFDs for malls. Edison (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. First off, there is nothing special or notable about this mall.  It is just another small mall.  Second this probably should have been speedy deleted as spam to advertise the mall for sale.  Then the id that created it seems to have a possible COI and has also been blocked.  While the last two points are not a reason to delete, with everything else, they make a keep outcome unwarranted. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree, this mall has nothing that renders it distinctive. While I would love to see the article grow, the subject of the article must itself be notable, and I cannot see where this one is. Fails WP:GNG for want of appropriate sources. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with its location. Polarpanda (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I'm all for considering an article's potential in an AfD, but I think the correct essay to link to here is WP:OVERCOME. This mall is simply not distinctive, large, or notable enough to merit coverage in an encyclopedia. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2010 (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.