Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumter Mall (2nd 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   keep. It would be easy to hide behind vote counting here, but I will note in addition that Hobit's argument regarding local sources appeared to me to be better based on the text of GNG. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

This article was deleted very recently after the discussion at Articles for deletion/Sumter Mall. There was subsequently a deletion review at Deletion review/Log/2014 May 19, which did not lead to a consensus to overturn. The page has now been re-created with enough references that a G4 would not be applicable (and has been tried and declined). The question is, are the new sources enough to overcome the concerns that led to deletion in the past? — S Marshall T/C 11:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article clearly meets the GNG. I'm unaware of a SNG or policy which indicates this should be deleted.  So keep. Hobit (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't feel the article might be a WP:NOT violation? Indiscriminate information, perhaps?— S Marshall  T/C 12:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Na. We have articles on old school houses where all we know is that it is in a list of historical buildings.  This seems much less indiscriminate and more useful than at least 50% of our articles.  Malls were a central part of many towns--occasionally as important as a downtown.  And they had huge impacts on cities--particularly downtowns as companies fled.  In any case, what one person views as indiscriminate, another might see as needed--it's why that policy has a list of things where people have agreed on what is indiscriminate.  This certainly isn't on the list. Hobit (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has multiple sources including non-local sources from the Herald-Journal in Spatanburg, SC and The State in Columbia, SC. Meets GNG and original concerns addressed. Me5000 (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete (again), no evidence the mall is any more notable than it was during the AFD, or the very recent DRV. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But you agree it meets the GNG? I'm trying to get my head around the justification for deletion here.  Hobit (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG. Looking at the deletion review, I get the impression that the deleted article was shorter, but I would have probably supported keeping the article at Articles for deletion/Sumter Mall after sources were mentioned there. Consensus can change, and when it depends on which editors notice the AFD (usually very few) maybe it isn't consensus of the community at all. Peter James (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can anyone point me to coverage that is not: a) non-substantial; b) routine; or c) local coverage? Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What is your objection to local? Hobit (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - regional mall in a small city is notable enough for an article. Article also has multiple newspaper sources, including non-local newspapers.  Dough 48  72  00:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources are reliable, independent and third party. Enough sources to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As I said at WT:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes, "The Sumter Mall article has new sourcing... At the DRV and AfD there was consensus that Sumter Mall met WP:GNG.  The argument that the sources were only local did not stand.  The argument that the sources were not independent was shown to not be consistent with the essay WP:INDY."  About the WP:NOT argument, I stated, "WP:NOT is a policy and supersedes the WP:N guideline.  But I don't see that the definitions [in allbusiness.com and icsc.org] that include the word "regional" open us up to indiscriminate coverage.  We know from icsc.org that as of Jan 2014, the U.S. has 680 super-regional malls, and 831 regional malls.  Malls also factor into the gazetteer as venues and regional landmarks."  Note that the icsc.org reference,, lists 111,502 as the "center count" in the U.S.  While statistical arguments have exceptions; as previously stated at the AfD or DRV, the city government considers this to be the most important shopping feature, and The Item in a headline describes the mall as the "Area's shopping cornerstone".  I originally believed that this mall had a size of over 400,000 sq ft, but I now suspect that this is the enclosed area; whereas the GLA is between 300,000 and 400,000 sq ft.  The mall still fits the allbusiness.com definition of a regional shopping center.  This weakens the argument that the mall fits as a "regional mall" as per icsc.org; however, on other parameters such as acreage, the mall is still in the regional mall type, and in the "Trade area size", the 5-25 miles range marks it as a super-regional mall.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This is absurd.  A week after the DRV ended, this gets recreated.  It's essentially the same article, with essentially the same set of references, all in a local paper.  So it fails WP:GNG for exactly the same reasons it failed the first time.  Recreating it was borderline disruptive.  The statement, At the DRV and AfD there was consensus that Sumter Mall met WP:GNG is equally absurd.  The AfD closing stated, The policy arguments clearly show that this is not independantly notable.  How do you turn that into there was consensus that Sumter Mall met WP:GNG?
 * There really are only two important questions here. First, "Do we judge notability of shopping malls based on their square footage?".  Second, "Are articles in local newspapers sufficient to establish notability without any more widespread coverage?"  We obviously disagree on those points, and that's fair.  But, let's keep the argument rational.  Summarizing prior discussions as establishing consensus which is diametrically opposed to the closing statements is not rational.
 * Above, asks a very reasonable question, What is your objection to local?.  The problem with local is that the closer you are to an event, the greater its significance is, to you.  I am concerned when my next door neighbor doesn't cut his lawn often enough and it starts to look unkempt.  I am concerned when somebody a mile away wants to put up a tall building which will block my view.  I am concerned when somebody in the next town wants to build a factory complex which will dump toxic waste into my water supply.  I am concerned when somebody in the next state wants to build a nuclear power plant, and I am concerned when a nuclear power plant anywhere in the world has an accident.  If only local newspapers are reporting on an event, that's evidence that it's only of interest to the local population.  If it were of interest to a wider audience, media from further away would be reporting on it as well.  So, it's not so much that I object to local, it's that I object to local in the absence of additional non-local coverage. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That you wish to discount the local sources is fine, but this plainly meets the GNG--I wasn't aware anyone was disagreeing with this. There are multiple articles in reliable independent sources.  The GNG says nothing about local.  Using WP:IAR here to say that local sources should be discounted is very much a reasonable Wikipedia argument.  But I'd like to hear what part of the GNG this doesn't meet.
 * Seperately, if its important to a fair number of people, I'd argue we should have an article on it (if we can support it with sources and it's not all OR). I don't care about porn stars, historical school houses or 98% of our TV coverage (I don't watch TV).  But I recognize that others do and we should still cover it.  More people likely care about this mall than 99% of the entries on the registry of historical places.  So does that (limited...) national coverage mean more than significant local coverage?  I just don't see how.  There is nothing wrong with covering local things as long as we have the sources to cover them.  Or put another way--"how does deleting his help the encyclopedia?"  Keeping it clearly helps--some people will read it and find it useful.  But I don't see the case that deletion helps.  I'm assuming you think it does, so I'd like to hear your reasoning.  Thanks! Hobit (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree that this meets GNG. Now you're aware of that :-)  I disagree because WP:GNG cites WP:IS, which, under Independent_sources, says, A newspaper in a small town might write about the opening and closing of every single business in the town, or the everyday activities of local citizens. Indiscriminate sources are poor indicators of notability and should be considered skeptically when determining due weight.  Alll of this was gone over in great detail in the DRV which closed a week before this article was recreated.  We've got the same people back here, making the same arguments, about the same article, which cites the same sources.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are citing an essay to justify this not meeting our primary notability guideline when it meets the entirety of the actual guideline as written? I understand your argument, but I hope you understand why I think that's a huge stretch.  If you think there is consensus that local sources shouldn't count toward the GNG, start an RfC. But I don't believe there is anything near consensus on that point, yet you are arguing we are all clearly in the wrong here.  OK, ignoring that, could you explain why deleting this is good for the encyclopedia?  I've not seen anyone address that, and if it's not, we really shouldn't be doing it. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment We have six references from non-Sumter sources.  These are from three different newspapers and one TV station.  Two of these first appeared in the new article, one of which is from Spartanburg, SC.  These are in addition to the multiple sources already listed at the first AfD.  For additional reference, The Item has hundreds of hits in a topic search for Sumter Mall, .  These seem to be from within the last ten years.  Additional hits for "Jessamine Mall" are available from Google newspaper archive, .  Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your math. I see eleven references.  Eight of them are from The Item.  Eleven minus eight is three.  How do you get six?  But anyway, let's look at thoese three:
 * The first is a link to the mall's own website.
 * The next is an article from the Herald-Journal. The is about some other mall being built in another town.  In the sixth paragraph, it finally gets to something about this mall, Wilson Associates malls in South Carolina are Jasmin Mall in Sumpter and Crosscreek Mall in Greenwood.  That's it.  That's all it says about this mall.
 * The third one simply says, "Local & State". The State. August 10, 2011. No URL, not even an article title, so I can't do anything with it.
 * The article also has a "Further Reading" link. I read that.  It's a routine article about how Christmas shopping season starts right after Thanksgiving. Here's what it has to say about Sumter Mall: In Sumter, a city minus a few thousands shoppers because of troop deployments from Shaw Air Force Base to Saudi Arabia, the city's only mall was packed with shoppers.  That's it.  They don't even mention the name of the mall.
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I need to define the term "non-Sumter sources", but if it helps I can do that. By "non-Sumter sources" I exclude the sources from The Item, which is published in Sumter; and sumtersc.gov.  I include newspapers and TV stations from Charleston, Spartanburg, and Columbia.  Do you want me to list the six non-Sumter sources?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Four of these non-Sumter sources are from the DRV. I found three in the article, whereas I initially only noticed two, so I am listing seven rather than six non-Sumter sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's see...
 * Malls didn't succeed for 2 downtowns. I can't find this one.  I went to http://www.thestate.com/ and tried entering both the title and the quote into the search box.  I come up with: 0 RESULTS FOR "MALLS DIDN'T SUCCEED FOR 2 DOWNTOWNS". Do you have a URL that points to the article itself?
 * Parents Flock to Sumter Mall For Free School Supplies. This doesn't strike me as being about the mall.  It's about an event which took place at the mall.  It could have just as easily take place at any other mall.
 * Sumter Mall hosting Junie B. Jones luau. Again, you didn't give a URL.  You gave a title, but when I go to http://www.thestate.com/ and enter that title into a search box, I get, 0 RESULTS FOR "SUMTER MALL HOSTING JUNIE B. JONES LUAU".  I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, I'm just trying to evaluate the sources.  If I can't find the sources, I can't evaluate them.
 * Malls vs. teens: Stricter rules govern hangout spots. Yeah, this one came up at the DRV.  Here's what I said at that time: This isn't about Sumpter Mall. It's about Teens hanging out in public places. Sumpter isn't mentioned until the seventh paragraph, and then just a few sentences, before the article moves on to the next sound bite from the next mall.
 * Shoppers Fill Stores Across South Carolina. I discussed this one earlier; it's not about the mall.  It's about the christmas shopping season.
 * The bottom line is that none of these are about the mall. They're about other things, and just happen to mention the mall in passing.  None of these establish notability.  And, more to the point, there's nothing here that wasn't gone over in the DRV.  Recreating this article was just being disruptive.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors are notified before posting to this page, "Be aware...that commenting on other users rather than the article is...considered disruptive." Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To quote from what I said at the DRV, "WP:GNG says, 'Significant coverage...need not be the main topic of the source material.' It is my understanding that WP:GNG can be established by a sufficient number of sources each with one relevant sentence."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Crystal A. Baker, State Business Writer (February 8, 1988), "Malls didn't succeed for 2 downtowns", The State (Columbia, SC), "But then Jessamine Mall, a regional shopping center, opened and an exodus began from Main Street to the suburban mall..."
 * Encyclopedic material, goes directly to satisfying WP:GNG. This is in a newspaper archive that covers The State.  I'm sure you can find the title online, but the quote is behind a paywall.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Parents Flock to Sumter Mall For Free School Supplies", WLTX (Columbia, SC)
 * Here the name of the mall appears in a headline. This demonstrates the basic principle of wp:notability, which is that the topic has attracted attention from the world at large.  Also goes to the factor that malls are part of the gazetteer as both venues and regional landmarks.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Sumter Mall hosting Junie B. Jones luau", The State (Columbia, SC), June 22, 2006
 * Again, the name of the mall appears in a headline. This shows that the topic has attracted attention from the world at large, and the topic may be worthy of notice as a venue.  I found the source online, but the headline is the point, and I'm not suggesting that this is a WP:GNG source.  Some of these archive searches don't return the expected results with exact wording, but an alternate phrase might work.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Caroline Fossi of The Post and Courier Staff (November 14, 2004), "Malls vs. teens: Stricter rules govern hangout spots", The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), retrieved 2014-05-26, "Sumter Mall's policy, 'Family First,' was started this year and requires people 16 and younger to be accompanied by an adult 21 or older after 6 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays."
 * Here a writer in Charleston, 106 miles away, writes about the name of a policy in the Sumter Mall. That is in-depth to not only know of a mall's policy, but its name.  Goes directly to WP:GNG notability.  The only question for WP:GNG is how much weight does this one sentence carry.  In this case, the weight only needs to be greater than zero, since the purpose for this source was to document for you that reliable sources other than The Item write about Sumter Mall.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Local & State". The State. August 10, 2011.
 * Used to source a sentence in the article. According to the article, "Local & State" is the name of the article.  You can ask for help on the talk page, or even tag the source with a verify? tag if you doubt that the source verifies the material.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Leonard, Michael (June 2, 1981). "60-Store Enclosed Shopping Mall Planned". Herald-Journal. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
 * I know that this was a good find because I tried to find sources in Spartanburg without success. We could have a long discussion about this source, since it is being used to source an alternate name for the mall.  This alternate name I characterized in the DRV as "informal" because I only saw it used in online chatter about the mall.  But the source also shows the name of the developer, so the source has two encyclopedic elements.  I recognize that there is an argument that this is not a WP:GNG source.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jim Davenport (24 November 1990). "Shoppers Fill Stores Across South Carolina". Herald-Journal. Spartanburg, SC. Retrieved 28 May 2014. "The mall opened at 8 a.m. and was packed an hour later, Kathy Burnam, manager of Jessamine Mall, said."
 * Speaks for itself, a writer in Columbia appears to have interviewed the manager of the Jessamine Mall in order to help write an article about Christmas shopping in SC. How does a writer in Columbia even know this mall exists if the mall is non-notable?  And why would the Spartanburg Herald-Journal reprint an article written in Columbia, unless there was material of interest to their readers?  Perhaps you don't live in an area where Christmas is a major event and malls are a focus for Christmas shoppers.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You say in a post above that this article doesn't mention the name of the mall. "Jessamine Mall" is one of the alternate names for this mall.  It is also interesting that your quote mentions Shaw Air force base, since I didn't mention, when listing the population of the city, that there are an additional 19,000 people living in the area at the air force base.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It is academic to argue that these seven sources don't "establish notability", since we have 19 more sources from the first AfD, even more sources have been added to the article while we have been having this discussion, and there are hundreds of more hits available.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There were 19 sources listed at the first AfD. Do you want me to list the 19 sources from the first AfD?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Leonard, Michael (June 2, 1981). "60-Store Enclosed Shopping Mall Planned". Herald-Journal. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
 * I know that this was a good find because I tried to find sources in Spartanburg without success. We could have a long discussion about this source, since it is being used to source an alternate name for the mall.  This alternate name I characterized in the DRV as "informal" because I only saw it used in online chatter about the mall.  But the source also shows the name of the developer, so the source has two encyclopedic elements.  I recognize that there is an argument that this is not a WP:GNG source.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jim Davenport (24 November 1990). "Shoppers Fill Stores Across South Carolina". Herald-Journal. Spartanburg, SC. Retrieved 28 May 2014. "The mall opened at 8 a.m. and was packed an hour later, Kathy Burnam, manager of Jessamine Mall, said."
 * Speaks for itself, a writer in Columbia appears to have interviewed the manager of the Jessamine Mall in order to help write an article about Christmas shopping in SC. How does a writer in Columbia even know this mall exists if the mall is non-notable?  And why would the Spartanburg Herald-Journal reprint an article written in Columbia, unless there was material of interest to their readers?  Perhaps you don't live in an area where Christmas is a major event and malls are a focus for Christmas shoppers.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You say in a post above that this article doesn't mention the name of the mall. "Jessamine Mall" is one of the alternate names for this mall.  It is also interesting that your quote mentions Shaw Air force base, since I didn't mention, when listing the population of the city, that there are an additional 19,000 people living in the area at the air force base.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It is academic to argue that these seven sources don't "establish notability", since we have 19 more sources from the first AfD, even more sources have been added to the article while we have been having this discussion, and there are hundreds of more hits available.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There were 19 sources listed at the first AfD. Do you want me to list the 19 sources from the first AfD?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Regarding the concern that Sumter is a "small town", I'll repeat the words in bold from the quote posted at the DRV: "city", "major hub", "city", and "a destination for the east central portion of South Carolina."
 * Comment Regarding the concern that The Item is a "small town newspaper", The Item is either a regional newspaper or similar.  The Item is an established daily newspaper, and I saw that some of their editions went over 100 pages.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - A sufficient number of sources cover the subject in sufficient depth to meet WP:GNG.- MrX 15:02, 11 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.