Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri City 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 keep. Tone 14:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tri City Mall

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." WP:BEFORE showed WP:ROUTINE coverage, but not significant coverage that addressed the subject directly and in-depth or that established it meets NBUILD. // Timothy :: talk 12:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 12:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 12:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 12:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my improvements, multiple reliable sources added with assertations of long-term notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The news citations are all routine news coverage that any mall would receive; it does not demonstrate notability. WP:NBUILD says that ""Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Nothing above touches on historic, social, or architectural importance (and significant coverage means addressing the subject directly and in depth). Which sources show historic, social, economic, or architectural notability. // Timothy :: talk 03:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So by your standards, articles like Swifton Center, Colonial Plaza, Castleton Square, Great Lakes Crossing Outlets, Rolling Acres Mall, Tri-County Mall, Forest Fair Village, Meridian Mall, Lansing Mall, etc. is just "routine coverage" too, huh? By your standards, every single one of those articles that I just named -- all of which, by the way, are Good Articles -- should be deleted because they have "no historic, social, economic, or architectural notability" and are just "routine coverage". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we have the newspapers—as we do in this case—regional centers of this kind tend to draw entire articles about them. Between what TenPoundHammer and I have added to this article, there are quite a few articles specifically talking about Tri-City, Tri-City's relevance in the Valley retail landscape, and so on. And that is something I have found with other centers. Raymie (t • c) 04:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

Guidelines are not just random arbitrary statements, there is a purpose to them. I see this as wheat and chaff. If we have 2000 articles for American malls (don't know the actual number), but only 200 are genuinely noteworthy, the 200 (10%) will be obscured by the other 1800 (90%). Removing non-notable malls, helps the visibility of notable ones. If all readers see when they look at malls, is open, renovate, close, boring routine items, they will miss the truly interesting and noteworthy malls. I believe this is what WP:NBUILD is going for when it says "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance".

Is there some historical importance, such as the malls that were the first of their kind? I'm thinking here of the same way department stores are viewed, every department store is not notable, but the first department stores were pioneers, those have a history that is interesting and notable.
Social, a small/average mall in an urban area not socially notable, it's just one among a vast array of social environments. But a mall in a small town may be the center of the community and a significant part of the social fabric, not duplicated in other places.
Architectural speaks for itself, there are lots of architectural journals and magazines and if they cover a mall because of its design, then I see that as an indication something about the mall is notable and this can be in the article.
Economic, I'd go to the social reason above. A mall in a large urban area is going to make a negligible impact on the economy, even if it makes good money. But a mall in a small town may be a significant part of the local economy, even if it makes a fraction of the money the mall in an urban area does. In the same way as a factory in a city with a huge manufacturing base like Los Angeles or New York wouldn't be notable, but if you move that same factory to a small town, it could be the lifeblood of the economy, if it closed the town would (and sadly have) dry up.

// Timothy :: talk 04:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that not one, but two retail chains chose this exact mall to open their first locations in the entire state, there's clearly at least some degree of economic weight in play here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons that TenPoundHammer and Raymie mentioned above, and as per both of their improvements. I disagree with the nominator that "If all readers see when they look at malls, is open, renovate, close, boring routine items, they will miss the truly interesting and noteworthy malls." Notability is not assessed in relation to other subjects, and openings, renovations, and closures are not necessarily "routine". Furthermore, the references in this page are definitely not mere directory listings or routine coverage. It may have seemed that way prior to the recent edits, but not in the current condition of the article. epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TPH, Raymei & Epicgenius. MB 20:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TPH, Raymei & Epicgenius. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Timothy is making points based on the quality of Wikipedia and the merit of the sources. I cannot seem to load any sources on the page either. IF one can explain to me the reliability of the sources, Im open to change my mind. Existance Leesaaisath 19:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:RS. I also disagree with the nominator; our guidelines are to provide independent, reliable sourcing, not determine which subjects should or shouldn't be written about on Wikipedia. Yoninah (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP Once notable always notable. Also passes WP:GEOFEAT with multiple reliable sources. I have to question the WP:BEFORE. 1968-1998 this was a very notable mall per the RS. AZ Central 1, 2, 3. listed in the book Directory of Major Malls and the book Metropolitan Phoenix: Place Making and Community Building Also non-trivial coverage here. Lightburst (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.