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

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. SpinningSpark 20:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]
        In-depth discussion of its closure and what was done to the property after its closure sure sound like "overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization" to me. This source and this source quite clearly pass WP:CORPDEPTH by detailing why it closed, and what the vision was for the property by its new post-closure owner. The Chain Store Age article also dedicates several paragraphs to its original tenancy and developer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I see so many problems with this. Similar coverage, especially when it is local coverage, have gotten many company articles deleted. Somehow, shopping malls gets a pass and the outcomes page mentions malls of a large size and then shoots that idea in the foot two sentences later. SL93 (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'm going to end this here for now and go to sleep. I don't agree with contradictions such as the outcome page and I don't agree with similar companies being non-notable when shopping malls are. There is no notability guideline and with the outcomes section about shopping malls being a mess, I don't see myself as being wrong in the slightest. SL93 (talk) 04:50, 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]

The article describing the murder is only 3 paragraphs long, and the mall is only mentioned in passing. This does not establish notability. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: proposer seems prejudice against size and local —¿philoserf? (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
‘’’Keep’’’. The work shown by TenPoundHammer above shows a long standing pattern of how much coverage is enough. There’s enough here to pass 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:54 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, announcements about a reopening don't show notability if the reopening doesn't happen. SL93 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article seems to have okay coverage and could probably be improved. 1 million sq ft seems an arbitrary cutoff and the arguments for coverage being WP:ROUTINE are shaky at best. Pokemonprime (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE isn't my argument. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell me what makes shopping malls so special compared to other local companies? No one has told me yet and I can't find the information. For example, I created an article on a local restaurant with similar coverage, but it was deleted in AfD as non-notable. Do people just love shopping that much? It's a serious question because I can't find anything. SL93 (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A multi-million dollar structure that causes permanent impact on the social and economic status of the community and region, has an entire subculture dedicated to its history and preservation (see dead mall), and even in the cases of failure can often be a topic of in depth discussion long after its demise? If reliable sources are still talking about a topic decades after its demise, then clearly it's had an impact. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, great, but I doubt that such local coverage would fly for any other company. I still see nothing beyond a personal opinion that shopping malls are superior to companies with similar coverage and discussion. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens of AFDs closed as "keep" for the same level of coverage are a "personal opinion" to you, huh? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - with no notability guideline, a failed notability proposal, and a contradictory outcomes page. SL93 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try it another way. How is another company, with similar coverage, insignificant compared to shopping malls? SL93 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a question ultimately beyond the scope of this AFD. I'd say that it ultimately comes down to what the company is, and there seems to be some back and forth about this almost every time a mall gets nominated for deletion, but in the end, far more AFDs than not tend to lean "keep". I think by now it's best for both of us to just WP:STICK and let the AFD run its course. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really am concerned for Wikipedia in general that I can't get a good answer for the above question based on there being apparent common outcomes. I think that the outcomes page is questionable in general - "Books are notable (and thus kept) if well-known, and should be listed under the author if not." So yeah, well-known, but significant coverage isn't mentioned - never in my years of book AfDs have I seen this outcome. I will let the AfD run its course, unless someone lies about my rationale again. SL93 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer's answer makes sense. Malls are different than most businesses in terms of scale. A comparison that makes sense is probably skyscrapers. They're of a scale that many of them are indeed notable. e.g. Millennium Tower (San Francisco)

However... this particular mall does not seem to be notable enough for inclusion just like your run of the mill skyscraper, which isn't special in any particular way, doesn't deserve an article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage provided by User:TenPoundHammer. Clear pass of ~~WP:MALL and~~ WP:GNG. Frank Anchor^Talk 15:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A clear pass of a guideline that failed? SL93 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, maybe I shouldn’t breeze through the top of the page to get to the substance of a guideline. Struck that part. I still stand by the rest of my “keep” vote. Frank Anchor^Talk 17:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A shopping mall can be a major permanent (or semi-permanent) community facility. I've supported articles on many. I don't think the sources show that this one ever was. (It is one of those subject where it is particularly difficult to distinguish substantial sources from advertising, which can cause difficulties). DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that the sources added by User:Sammi Brie show further notability in how the mall was an early adopter of an innovation by Kmart, as well as an impact on downtown. This, combined with the murder at the Lerner store and the substantial coverage it got on purchase, should push it over the notability line (especially since it has spent most of the Internet era as a dead mall). This discussion seems like it's headed to a "no consensus" at worst, given the back and forth that has gone on way too long above. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note the reason I haven't !voted is that this is a toughie. If this were in another metro area with a long-run newspaper in newspapers.com, I'd be a lot better off. Most of Michigan does not fall under that category (none of the Advance papers are represented in the modern era). I just have NewsBank, and not enough of it to cover the decline of this center. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yitzilitt: @Hyperbolick: since you participated in the Foundry Row AFD, what are your thoughts here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep, but what happened after 2011? Article seems as dead as the mall. Is there a neighborhood or development this is in? Could it merge somewhere? Hyperbolick (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as significant coverage shows notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be sufficient coverage present to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2021 (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.