Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hampton Towne Centre (2nd nomination)

Hampton Towne Centre

[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)

No evidence it was ever notable. The usual size when a mall is likely to have sources for notability is 1 million sq ft, but this mall had only one-third of that. Thus there are only local and first-party sourdces DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on my same deletion argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundry Row - local routine coverage (it certainly isn't 1 million sq ft either). When did this nonsense about shopping malls typically being notable (and somehow typically encyclopedic) happen? I never understood it and no one bothered to form a guideline about it. Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers) failed years ago. I understand rivers, lakes, towns, species, and such normally or always being encyclopedic, but shopping malls makes absolutely no sense. SL93 (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @SL93: WP:OUTCOMES has saved many a mall article. Discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middlesboro Mall (Middlesboro, Kentucky) have established a precedent that only a small amount of coverage is needed to maintain a mall's notability. Saying that "shopping malls makes absolutely no sense" reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @TenPoundHammer: That page clearly says, "Larger shopping malls are often found to be notable." so mentioning WP:BIGNUMBER is invalid. SL93 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @SL93: it also says " Size however, does not in and of itself confer notability, nor does it abrogate the requirements set forth in GNG." As I said below, the fact that it is getting significant news coverage after its closure shows notability which is not temporary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @TenPoundHammer: So that part about shopping malls is useless due to it being contradictory. It's interesting that I don't see a precedent about WP:ROUTINE mentioned. SL93 (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        That's because WP:ROUTINE applies to events, not places. A mall is not an event. WP:ROUTINE was deemed inapplicable to malls in this long ANI post last August, which also showed nearly every editor siding with the belief that coverage such as what you see here is sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @TenPoundHammer: You should really have something better than an archived admin incident discussion. There is also WP:CORPDEPTH. SL93 (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        How about the fact that WP:ROUTINE is part of a page called "Notability (events)"? Again, a mall is not an event, so WP:ROUTINE cannot apply to it by any stretch of the imagination. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        And WP:CORPDEPTH magically doesn't apply? SL93 (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only coverage in RS seems to be notices that it shut down and that someone had plans to rebuild it. Plus in the previous AFD the page creator admitted to a conflict of interest and supported the page's removal. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bob drobbs: That was an old angelfire page I made when I was 15. It was cited in the 2007 version of the article, and in the intervening years many things have changed. There is no way that the current version of the article creates any COI with me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources present in article. There is coverage long predating its closure, some of which is already in the article (e.g. the murder at the Lerner New York store). The fact that it got coverage after its closure is indication that notability is not temporary. The Angelfire page I wrote in 2002 (!) and referenced in the 2007 AFD is no longer being cited as a reference in the current version, thus eliminating any COI on my part. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Nominator's argument that malls under 1 million square feet aren't considered notable is in violation of WP:BIGNUMBER. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: proposer seems prejudice against size and local —¿philoserf? (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]