Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (3rd nomination)


 * 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. --Core desat 05:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sierra Vista Mall
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was originally kept at its prior AfD. DRV overturned this result, but could not reach a strong consensus to delete outright. The matter is resubmitted to AfD. Deletion is on the table, particularly concerning the question of whether the sources offered in the article qualify as reliable and non-trivial. Xoloz 13:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Neutral - I read the previous AfD and noted that some added that economical impact was noteworthy. However, I cannot find it in the article.  If there is a reference to the noteworthy economical impact that can be added to this article, I could see keeping it.  -- Blind  Eagle  talk ~ contribs  15:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Until I get a chance to review the extranl links of the article, I cannot change my stance to "keep". However, if external links can be referenced within the text more appropriately (albeit not required for this AfD), it would make a lot easier for people to understand what is being annotated.  -- Blind  Eagle  talk ~ contribs  13:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Per my comment in the DRV. All of those sources are obviously too local, many of them trivial, like "Sierra Vista Mall will hold a community outreach fair at 10 am", thus not really independent of the topic (anything, even local resturants, apartment buildings, nursing homes, local politicians (which fail WP:BIO btw, supermarkets, etc can have that many local sources). WP:HEY doesn't apply nither as the only thing added was an infobox, and the spam wasn't removed. Jbeach56 19:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I still do not understand what you actually mean by too local. Is a newspaper from the same city too local. Is a publication from the City Government to local. How far away must the source be? Please explain what sources your refering to when you say "a community outreach fair at 10 am", because none of thoes have been used in the Article. WP:HEY shouldnt be a factor in any AfD because AfD is not a method for forcing an articles improovement, is it? AfD should be a place for a cross section of WP to guage if a Article Subject could be worth noting, isnt it? In this perticular case, I believe it is. I had thought my first Citations had shown that, but I hope that this new set does. Please, I ask that you reconsider. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  08:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at the sources, one of them aren't independent (the school board one) and the last two seems to me like they copied from each other, and the area seems wrong "Sierra Vista Mall - the largest retail complex in Southeastern Arizona". Jbeach sup 16:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A mall's whose name did not get any mention in the local press, that would be a notable phenomenon. There has been absolutely no clue whatsoever as to why this mall should have a wikipedia entry. It has to be proven it is notable, not that it is not, and I maintain that this mall could be deleted per A7, "no claim to notability".--victor falk 22:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but a7 is for things that do not say anything that might indicate notabiity at all, like having major stores, and only if one accept the extension of treating malls as companies) Believe it or not, there are many much sketchier mall articles, suitable for speedy as no meaningful content. DGG (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - citations being to local is not a valid reason to delete, and if it is then you had best be prepared to remove entire categories Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  06:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * God I despise you people. The only reason this article is hard to expand is that available sources all have to be paid for. Kappa 07:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * please be civil. citations have been added, it just took a while to wade throuhg thousands of them finding good ones. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  07:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   -- Gavin Collins 08:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourcing is based on routine coverage and asserts nothing that is out of the ordinary. ~ trialsanderrors 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * US-Mexico Border Philanthropy Partnership is routine ??? And why does not being extra-ordinary not mean it it no worth noting ? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that source doesn't mention this mall, it mentions one in Arizona. Jbeach sup 00:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. A large regional mall is always important to its community.  plenty of coverage in local press.  It adds to our scope of encyclopedic coverage.  Wikidemo 14:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything has local coverage in the press, even nursing homes, certain stores, local politicians, etc, Jbeach sup 21:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Most businesses aren't covered by an article about them. But at any rate, coverage what notability tested on -- see WP:CORP.  There's no exclusion for local papers at WP:CORP.  I don't think we should make up a new rule to that effect, but if we do want a new rule the proper place to hash that out is on the notability pages or village pump, not the talk page for deleting a specific shopping mall.  For the moment the rule is that notability is established by substantial mentions in reliable secondary sources.  We have that here; hence, according to the current guidelines this mall is notable.Wikidemo 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete with fire. No nontrivial sources whatsoever have been put forward by the article's proponents.  Counting Google hits is not research.  Merely looking at Google's summary of a hit - as was clearly done, given that multiple "sources" linked in the article, including the two of those stridently proclaimed by Exit2Dos above, are about a different mall entirely - is, if anything, worse. &mdash;Cryptic 20:27, 24 October 2007 (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.