Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (5th 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 no consensus. Fundamentally, this seems to boil down to whether the coverage is significant becuase of the intended audience.

Whilst the policies on 'local' and 'regional' are clear, there isn't really consensus on whether these sources are one or the other, or indeed wider. Consequently, agreement on the sources is unlikely to be reached. Ged UK  12:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It has been deleted at AfD multiple times, most recently last year. All of its coverage is either local or passing mentions. (The Business Journal is a local source, as are Fresno and Oakland. The NRDGA is the definition of a passing mention, and the go.com is tagged as a "Local" story.) I looked through all major academic databases and the best I got is "Sierra Vista Mall Serves as Cooling Center During Extreme Heat" from a targeted news service and other small mentions where the mall is either incidental to the story or only of interest to the immediate locality. If malls are commonly kept at AfD, they should be really easy to source. There is nothing particularly noteworthy about this run-of-the-mill mall, though it would make a fine redirect to Clovis, California, which can cover anything that needs to be said about the mall's existence (check the edit history for a merge that was reverted). The editor that reverted the last AfD's redirect has said there is no precedent for merging malls to town articles, though of course we merge non-notable child articles to parent articles all the time. If the article is redirected or deleted, please salt it so we can avoid yet another AfD. Thanks for your time. – czar   18:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per long-standing precedent that this level of coverage is sufficient for asserting a mall's notability; see Articles for deletion/Sumter Mall (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Southgate Mall (Missoula), Articles for deletion/Findlay Village Mall (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/The Mall at Westlake, Articles for deletion/Middlesboro Mall (Middlesboro, Kentucky), Articles for deletion/Staunton Mall, et al., all of which were closed as "keep" despite a similar level of coverage. Merging to Clovis, California as the nominator did seemed to be in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:LENGTH, and the AFD's I've linked show that these kinds of sources are sufficient per WP:OUTCOMES to assert enough notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge because the mall does not have the notability for it to be covered in a stand-alone article, even in summary style; it will not be a considerable detriment to navigation nor will it lose important context. Esquivalience t 00:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mall is covered in newspaper sources and appears notable. Article could use a little expansion though.  Dough   4872   04:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources do not establish notability all sources are either local, passing mentions or perfunctory. This is just a run of the mill mall with no national coverage. Consensus can change and past AFD outcomes does not give this article an instant pass. Me5000 (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Can't speak about the previous AfDs but there have been multiple new in-depth sources about this topic since the last one. Our guidelines don't ban "local" sources as evidence of notability.--Oakshade (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, local sources alone do not signify notability. As for depth, not a single secondary source says anything in depth about the mall itself. – czar   19:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, those publications serve the San Joaquin Valley region and as per WP:AUD, the sub-clause you value as you just linked it, regional sources are indicator of notability per WP:CORP. --Oakshade (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's some selective reading. The last sentence of AUD makes its intent clear: to have major coverage from some place wider than its near surroundings. None of the sources fit that description. – czar   22:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're going to get WP:GAMETYPE on us, the entire AUD, both the first and second (last) sentences, make it expressly clear that regional sources indicate notability. The Fresno Bee, the Oakland Tribune and the Tribune Business News serve the region of the entire San Joaquin Valley and the Oakland Tribune serves even outside that region; thus demonstrating coverage beyond regional and more than AUD requires. By citing AUD you're actually strengthening the case for keeping.  If you'd like to change WP:AUD to exclude regional sources then you need to make a proposal and gain consensus o the WP:CORP talk page, not invent your own definition to selectively serve an AfD you started. --Oakshade (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A Rovian accusation. The named papers make their constituency very clear in their titles: they're local papers. If you're saying they serve the Valley based on their WP pages, remember that WP is not a reliable source, especially when unsourced. AUD clearly addresses your original question of how WP treats local coverage: when a structure such as a mall only receives coverage (weak and incidental, at that) in sources of a local nature, some sign of greater area significance is needed to justify its own article. Furthermore, if this is really the extent of the mall's coverage, there's no reason to keep it standalone rather than as a major feature in the township article. – czar   00:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally, a mall will not be mentioned outside of local or regional source unless a nationally significant event happens. Usually, good coverage in local or regional sources will justify notability as most people on the East Coast will probably not care about a mall in California.  Dough   4872   04:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as being properly sourced for WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have enough reliable sources. Could use an expansion like a user above mentioned. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Two of the users who participated in this AFD(Caldorwards4 and Dough4872) were notified by Ten Pound Hammer here and here . I believe this to be possible WP:Votestacking to sway the consensus towards keep since both him and the users he notified are members of wikiproject shopping centers and in two of the AFD's linked by Ten Pound Hammer above, Dough4872 !voted keep with the reason "enclosed malls are notable". Me5000 (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked Dough4872 because I had seen them in other AFDs for malls, not because they happened to !vote "Keep" in them, which I didn't even notice they had. Asking other users to participate in a discussion without attempting to sway them in your direction is not canvassing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As per WP:AFD, it is stipulated to report an AfD to related Wikiprojects as long as the note is neutral. Caldorwards4 and Dough4872 are both members of WikiProject Shopping Centers and were both left neutral notes, although it probably would have been better to put a note on the project the talk page.--Oakshade (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources that TenPoundHammer provided in the article. For example, The Fresno Bee article provides substantial coverage about the mall's history and details: "The 78-acre shopping center was built in 1988 by The Hahn Co. In 1995, a division of banking giant Citicorp acquired the mall in a default sale. LandValue bought the center in 2002. The new owners added a 110,000-square-foot outdoor lifestyle section to the mall in 2006. It has four anchors and more than 85 retail and restaurant spaces and a theater, Sierra Vista Cinema 16. Then the economy stalled and the center suffered its first blow." Articles about the mall in The Business Journal (link and link) and Knight Ridder (link) also provide detailed coverage. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sierra Vista Mall to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Lean keep, although I could argue either way. I believe keep is the correct outcome, not because this particular mall-article kinda-sorta satisfies a strict reading of WP:42, but because, like high schools (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) and like locally-elected state legislature politicians (WP:POLITICIAN), there are several categories of quasi-inherently-wiki-notable "community institutions" like the local mall.
 * Almost every town has a high school, almost every high school receives purely local coverage, very WP:DOGBITESMAN, yet we keep them... as a means to attract good-faith editors. There is, 99.4% of the time, only local coverage (and sometimes only WP:ABOUTSELF coverage available online).  I see mall-articles as serving a similar function:  the kind of human, that has an urge to correct the square footage figure of their local mall, or the urge to correct the principal's name of their local high school, is the kind of person we want to entice into editing.  (We also have an ulterior motive:  the kind of person who will vandalize the wikipedia article about their local mall or about their high school is the kind of person we want to tempt into getting blocked.)  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, of course, but we have some topics that most traditional encyclopedias shun:  individualized articles about cartoons on television, individualized articles about 'singles' by popular musicians, individualized articles about the biographies of national sports figures, individualized biographies of local politicians (not just the mayors of major metros but the locally-elected reps in thousands of provincial legislatures).  We have "geographic" articles on every populated area.  We have "education" articles on every local high school.  Why?  Because WP:ANYONE.
 * Thus, my argument here is not that WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, but that this particular subset of 'other stuff' exists for a good reason: to act as a honeypot.  Malls seem to be in the same category; as long as the article on the mall is kept non-spammy, avoids listcruft, and has *some* reasonable degree of sourcing to wiki-reliable independent coverage, I don't think violation of WP:GEOSCOPE is a reason to delete, and I do think WP:IAR-honeypot should probably trump the WP:IAR-not-really-encyclopedic.  Quite frankly, I don't think most malls ("National Mall" being an exception for instance) belong in a 'proper' encyclopedia... but most malls, like most high schools, do very much belong in the 'anyone can edit' encyclopedia.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what this honeypot theory is about, or if you are serious. Are you saying bad articles should be kept so that inept eds will vandalize them instead of good ones? — Brianhe (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Brianhe, to grok the honeypot concept in action, see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and see WP:POLITICIAN (specifically the every-state-legislator-bit). Every high school article is bangkept, bad or not, well-referenced or not.  AfD is not for improvement, the correct place to improve the article is in mainspace.  But it is very much the case that AfD is for determining, through discussion and source-digging, whether WP:42 has been satisfied.  Yet with high schools, the presumption is that WP:N can always be satisfied, even if the article does not list ANY SOURCES whatsoever, besides some trivial URL that proves the school exists and isn't a hoax, usually to a government directory-website.  Why?  Well, because honeypot.  Plenty of people went to high school.  Those people are inherently motivated to help improve the article about their high school.  Such articles often desperately need improving.  QED.  Same for state-legislator-rep.  Perhaps the same for major malls, if they have enough references.  We give high schools dedicated articles, we don't merge them into the cities.  We give state reps dedicated articles, we don't merge them into the political district.  Whether we ought give malls the same treatment, is a question of long term strategy, and I'm on the fence, but I think the case can be made for treating malls like high schools.  Others may disagree, per WP:ROUTINE or WP:GEOSCOPE perhaps, but methinks WP:Don't_cite_WP42_at_AfD most definitely applies here.  See also my reply to DGG, below.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the process you just described is usually referred to as building an encyclopedia contributing to Wikipedia, not "honeypot". The latter conjures images of entrapped, co-opted and coerced individuals, which is extremely distasteful in this context. — Brianhe (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as for previous afds. The material here is purely routine overage in local publications, which are not reliable sources for local malls. Most malls this size have not been kept, unless there was actually some special non-local notability. (The rule on High schools is purely in the nature of a compromise to keep them and not primary schools, to avoid the great number of afd debates--it's not a precedent for other local institutions)   DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The malls I linked to in my !vote were all of this size or smaller and every single one was kept. Brighton Mall, Sumter Mall, and Middlesboro Mall in particular aren't even half the size and serve far smaller markets than Clovis. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that high schools are a compromise, and not a precedent. But not sure we shouldn't implement the same compromise for malls, as long as they have *some* local coverage; articles on the local mall, might attract a different subset of potential-wikipedian, than articles on the local high school.  Malls might also attract more linkspam/etc than they are worth in terms of incentivizing newbie editors to click 'edit', which is why I'm on the fence.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Local sources don't necessarily make the article notable. Per DGG, malls this size usually don't get kept unless something happened (like an accident). MrWooHoo (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See my !vote; most if not all of the malls I linked to the prior discussions of are of this size or smaller. 500,000 SF is "medium" for a mall. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * medium is non notable, by the ordinary meaning of the word. There indeed have been some erratic decisions on malls--the mood on them is inconsistent--we have reached very near consensus in the past on 1 million sq ft, but never quite got there. I continue not to understand why  anyone would expect than article on malls of this very mild degree of importance in an encyclopedia. The sources bear me out--they;re essentially local and trivial.  DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC).


 * Delete: This is not supposed to be an encyclopedia about "things", that's called a business directory. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia about "notable things", i.e. interesting. This has not a scintilla of interesting about it. Has it shaped its region, culturally or otherwise in any notable way? No, and nobody is arguing it has. Even a West Coast paper whose name I recognize mentioning a momentous "110,000-square-foot outdoor lifestyle section" does nothing to change this, Cunard's labeling it as "substantial coverage" notwithstanding. The best we can hope for is that a WP:NOTNEWS incident happens there. Arguments for keeping have been weak-sauce blind appeals to precedent or bizarre logic of wait and see if it's elevated to decency by standing as a beacon of mediocrity. — Brianhe (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you even look at all the other discussions I linked? Clearly there is a precedent that malls are notable. That many AFDs weren't closed as "keep" for nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY, sources seem local, business as usual (ex. ), or passing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, why the sudden bias against them when so many have been kept before? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 01:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with TenPoundHammer's comments above. also provides an excellent explanation about why malls, like high schools, typically don't receive coverage in nonlocal sources: "Generally, a mall will not be mentioned outside of local or regional source unless a nationally significant event happens. Usually, good coverage in local or regional sources will justify notability as most people on the East Coast will probably not care about a mall in California." Here are more sources I found about the subject in The Fresno Bee that can be used to verify content in the article.  </li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>Cunard (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * The Fresno Bee is a local newspaper, does not pass WP:AUD. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Fresno Bee is a regional newspaper, which does pass WP:AUD, which notes that a regional source is "a strong indication of notability". Cunard (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources demonstrate notability. The hand-waving about local interest and run-of-the-mill is just a variety of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the repeated nominations seem to be vexatious, contrary to WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew D. (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This hand-waving of local interest is supported by WP:AUD. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG. "Malls are the city centers of the 20th Century," I think the saying goes... Still pretty true. Carrite (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Per DGG. You can't compare this to schools, it simply isn't the same.  Local coverage doesn't really do the trick unless there is some cultural significance or coverage outside the serving area, as local only coverage is routine for any mall.  This would force us to keep all malls, which isn't consistent with policy.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:59, 24 September 2015 (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.