Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knollwood 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 Deleted, part of an extensive spamming campaign by General Growth Propeties, Inc. I have deleted about twenty so far and there are more to do yet. All are the work of a single purpose account who has not responded to a single one of the many Talk messages left him regarding his spamming campaign; the account is now blocked. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Knollwood Mall

Knollwood Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another shopping mall article. No notability at all, its just a bloody shopping centre. No assertion of any features which would make this worthy of an encyclopaedia article Lurker ^oi! 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm on the fence about this one. Would you care to expand this nomination to include everything in Category:Shopping malls? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not at the moment, as it will take time to go through them all and see if any come close to fulfilling notability criteria. All I have seen so far would qualify for deletion or merging per WP:Local, but I don't have time to check every single article about shopping malls in wikipedia Lurker ^oi! 17:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please treat each subject on its own merits, and apply the criteria in WP:CORP. Uncle G 17:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Very few shopping mall articles would pass WP:CORP as far as I can see, but some may warrant inclusion in articles about places under WP:Local. Lurker ^oi! 17:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You aren't applying WP:CORP properly. To determine that something fails to satisfy WP:CORP requires doing research, to look for the existence of multiple non-trivial published works on the subject at hand. Unless you have researched every shopping mall in the world, you cannot support the statement that you have just made. Uncle G 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
        • If the article doesn't already contain information that satisfies WP:CORP, I don't think it's up to editors to do research to look for it. Then nothing would ever get done, and Wikipedia would be flooded with articles about non-entities. (Oh, wait. It already is.) It's not about whether the subject of any given article is notable, it's about whether the article asserts this notability and has the verifiability to back it up. wikipediatrix 19:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Wrong. Assertions of notability only apply to speedy deletion. This is AFD. One of the very reasons for having AFD discussions is for multiple editors to research and double check the verifiability and the notability of articles. If an editor isn't doing the research, xe is not actually positively contributing to AFD. Everyone here should be doing the research. The idea that "nothing would get done" if all editors are actively doing the research and citing and evaluating what they all find is obviously false. Indeed, on the contrary quite a lot would get done. Uncle G 19:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not of any encyclopedic interest. I would not consider a mall unless it was newsworthy on at least a statewide scale. It could have a mention, or even a paragraph, in an article covering the region, but it does not warrant an entire article. LittleOldMe 18:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Restricting the published works to statewide works is arbitrary, wrong, and not what WP:CORP says. Uncle G 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Applying WP:CORP and researching the actual subject of the article at hand, instead of working from a basis of erroneous generalizations about all shopping malls (Notability is not a blanket.), turns up this article in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal, this article by Karen M. Kroll, this article by Matthew Cody, and this article by the St. Louis Park Historical Society (which contains lots of useful ancillary content for an encyclopaedia article, including, for starters, the mall's original name). The Minnesota Historical Society even has an interesting picture. It appears that the primary WP:CORP criterion is satisfied. There's plenty of content in those sources that isn't yet in the article, in part because the article has been badly written, using only corporate autobiographies as its sources. But that's a simple matter of cleanup and expansion using the abovementioned sources. Keep. Uncle G 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The citations need to be in the article in addition to here. Edison 19:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually they don't. It's much the best if they are, since it improves the article and prevents this question from arising again, but it isn't a requirement for keeping the article. Feel free to experience the joy of collaborative editing by copying and pasting the citations into the article yourself. ☺ Uncle G 19:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Let's see. An article in a local business paper with the title "Knollwood Mall expands T.J. Maxx, adds new fitness center" is hardly an example of newsworthiness. The others include a website devoted to defunct malls, a local history website and an advertorial-style article from the "International Council of Shopping Centres". Oh, and a nice picture. Lurker ^oi! 19:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Newsworthiness" is not the criterion. That's already been judged by the journalist that wrote the article. And that you apparently haven't read beyond the title rather undermines any criticism that you may have. The criterion is whether the article is non-trivial (which at 2 pages and 21 paragraphs it certainly seems to be) and sourced independently of the subject (which, given that its author is Andrew Tellijohn, a Journal reporter, it also certainly seems to be). As I said, you aren't applying WP:CORP properly.

    And yes, it's an article by a local historical society. As such, it is a good source for an encyclopaedia article. History is well within the remit of Wikipedia. Uncle G 19:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G. --Moreau36 20:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete I'm tempted to say weakest of keeps per Uncle G but the article could almost be speedily deleted. The creator Dvac (talk · contribs) has been creating countless articles about non-notable malls despite repeated warnings that these articles were being speedy deleted, proded, nominated for deletion. Most, if not all of these articles are written in a promotional tone, do not cite any third-party references, etc. The problem is that it is not Uncle G's job to do the research for careless editors: if an article is created as a poor, unreferenced, promotional stub, it should be deleted, period. If the topic has some value (as Uncle G's research seems to indicate to a certain extent) someone will re-create it in acceptable form down the road. I know we're not supposed to take actions to prove a point but in this case, I think deleting would be good for the integrity of Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 17:37, 23 November 2006 (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.