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.
Non-notable shopping mall Me5000 (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence that it is non-notable? Unscintillating (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence that it is notable? DES(talk) 14:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made any claims that the topic is or is not notable. I posted this question before your !vote and I have not studied your !vote at this point. If the nominator has no evidence, then his/her !vote will be judged accordingly. Unscintillating (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article and the sources provided do not assert notability. A google search for "columbia mall missouri" finds no reliable sources. Article fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Me5000 (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that lack of evidence of notability is evidence of lack of notability. However, it is good practice for a nominator to indicate the WP:BEFORE work done on a nom, in my view. DES(talk) 16:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Unscintillating (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged this article with WP:PROD. It was declined, and i was in the process of nominating this for AfD when Me5000 did so as I was typing my nomination. This seems to me to be a run-of-the-highway mall, if larger than many. None of the currently cited sources seem to me to help establish notability. They are:
A rehash of a press release that merely announces that a particular store plans to open at the mall, and does not discuss the mall at all. Not independent, and no in-depth coverage. Does nothing towards notability (http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/story.aspx?id=968774#.UxH2r4UrhLl); and
An ad from the company that owns the mall (or perhaps just manages it) that touts the various attractions nearby in an effort to attract stores to locate at the mall. Also does nothign for notability, and probbably shouldn't even be included. (http://www.ggp.com/properties/mall-properties/columbia-mall)
A Google search I made found nothing better. Lots of store reviews, mostly at sites with user-generated content. Lots of directory entries. A few passing mentions. Nothing of significance, no in depth coverage, little that was even from a reliable source. Nothing that would come near passing the WP:GNG. Clearly this mall exists, and the article is apparently factual. But unless malls, like high-schools and villages, are to be considered de facto inherently notable, or unless someone finds and cites a better source than i found, this should be deleted. DES(talk) 15:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment I should add that I declined an A7 speedy on this yesterday, as out of scope for A7, and promptly added the Prod tag. DES(talk) 15:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About #3, it is a primary source reliable for statements about itself. About #2, I see your point that much of this has been sourced by a news release, but if a WP:RS is sourcing a story from a news release, we depend on the WP:RS to do their fact checking. The term "Columbia Mall" appears in the headline as an object of familiarity that needs no explanation. The publisher is the CBS-TV affiliate in the area. Unscintillating (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is essentially WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The three sources you added do not establish notability, one is just a store locator from the Barnes and Noble website and the other two are just some directory listing. Me5000 (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, my argument is that WP:NPLACE clearly applies here (i.e, Larger malls are generally considered notable). In other words, large malls are usually kept by consensus. FWIW, Hoover's is generally considered to be RS. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the second line of WP:NPLACE is what applies here "Very small malls, strip malls, and individual shops are generally deleted unless significant sourcing can be found." I'm not disputing Hoover's as being reliable, but it is a directory, how does it establish notability? Me5000 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A mall with 140 stores, five anchor stores and its own PO is the definition of a large mall. Per the International Council of Shopping Centers mall size classes, its 740,000 sq ft makes it a Regional Center. If it had another 60,000 sq ft, it would be classed as a Superregional Center. Claiming it is a "very small mall" is absurd. The Hoover's, etc. cites are mainly for WP:V purposes. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're really reaching now. A little research shows that this is definitely a small mall. Here is a list of 20 malls in the United States much larger with the smallest one on the list being 1.8 million square feet. Here's one in Canada that is 5.5 million square feet. Here(click helpful info tab) and here are some smaller malls that are still 1.3 million and 1.2 million respectively. Me5000 (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? We aren't talking about extremely large or mega malls. The List of largest shopping malls in the world lists only ~60 very large and mega malls (some of which are less than twice the size of this one). A "very small" mall would be in the class "Neighborhood center". A "Regional center" (this one is at the upper side of that class) is two sizes larger. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notice how everything smaller than "Regional Mall" isn't referred to as a mall anywhere in the document? Heck, in the concept section of Community Center(the category below regional mall) it even says "The center is usually configured in a straight line as a strip, or may be laid out in an L or U shape, depending on the site and design." i.e. strip malls. Malls start at 400,000 square feet, this mall is only 340,000 square feet bigger than that compared to the list you linked to (which actually proves my point even more because it is even longer than what I found) and the smallest mall I linked to is still 460,000 square feet bigger. Face it, in the realm of malls this is a small mall. Is it the absolute smallest mall? Obviously not, but it is certainly still a small mall. Really, I'm not trying to insult you here or anything, but you are really grasping at straws. Me5000 (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess the Wikipedia Shopping mall article needs a major rewrite since it refers to all of the sizes as malls. If you believe that this mall qualifies as a very small mall, then I'm afraid we will simply agree to disagree. 06:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
What information the shopping mall article contains is completely irrelevant to this discussion, but after quickly looking at it some of it and its sources, I do see some original research. Either way, the article clearly distinguishes between strip malls and malls, so I have no idea why you cited it. You seem to want to group strip malls and malls together in order to call this mall large in comparison when even the page you originally cited, WP:NPLACE, also cleary distinguishes between strip malls and malls,"Larger malls are generally considered notable. Very small malls, strip malls, and individual shops are generally deleted unless significant sourcing can be found." Very funny the way you suddenly changed to strong keep when nothing significant on the mall article has changed since you changed it to keep. Frankly, that's pretty childish and passive-aggressive. Me5000 (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to strong because the argument for deletion now appears WP:UNDUE and fails WP:MNA. BTW, the article, for its size, has undergone significant change since my Keep. Also, you need to review WP:FAITH given that you appear to be accusing me of bad faith, so I think this conversation has ended. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the problem is notability. Adding an infobox isn't anything that would warrant a change from keep to strong keep, it is pretty obvious that you are getting annoyed with me because I won't agree with you. You changed from keep to strong keep in the same edit you were replying to me and the reply was a little passive-aggressive as well. It would be a good idea for you to read WP:FAITH as well. Me5000 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need you to agree with me. I simply find it absurd that someone who appears to be intelligent is even capable of calling this a "very small" mall. I changed it to strong after having gone thru a lot of info on mall size and by reviewing a number of other mall AfDs during this discussion. It is now clear to me that deleting this would be to completely ignore long standing consensus, and that discussing the meaning of "very small" should not be done on every mall AfD per WP:MNA. Consensus has already been reached on that issue per previous mall AfDs, and discussing changing that consensus should be done at WP:OUTCOMES so that WP:NPLACE can be properly reworded. Please understand that consensus can override notability as it does here. BTW, I am not the one being unWP:CIVIL by making personal attacks. Continuing to personally attack me is not helping your arguments. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The size of mall is irrelevant anyway, We are arguing semantics over WP:OUTCOME which isn't even a reason to keep articles, it says this on the outcome page,"This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change.". "all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else", and "Avoid over-reliance on citing these "common outcomes" when stating one's case at Articles for Deletion. While precedents can be useful in helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practice. When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources." Additionally, you have proven your agrument is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, because you are saying since articles in the past on malls haven't been deleted this one shouldn't either. WP:OUTCOMES specifically addresses this,"Avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as "Notability is only an optional guideline" or "We always keep these articles". In regard to the "personal attacks", please explain what the purpose of stating "Then I guess the Wikipedia Shopping mall article needs a major rewrite since it refers to all of the sizes as malls." serves other than passive aggression. Me5000 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a rest already. I suspect no one but us is reading any of this at this point. My "Strong keep" stands, so you are just wasting your time even if my individual keep was all that important anyway. Not long ago I urged an end to another useless discussion like this, so I am trying to take my own advice now. FWIW, being a little sarcastic about a discussion point is not a "PERSONAL" attack against the individual, but is instead an attack on the point being argued. Please learn to tell the difference. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame you there, my reply completely invalidates your strong keep, there is really nothing you could say in reply. Also, you need to review WP:SARCASM given that you seem to think your sarcastic remark was harmless. Me5000 (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chad Day; Jacob Barker (1 May 2009). "Transportation development districts use sales tax money with little oversight or regulation". Missourian. Columbia, MO. Retrieved 2014-03-04. Or try to get to Columbia Mall on a Saturday during the Christmas shopping season. You might be stuck on Worley Street...while the traffic light changes from green to red...five or six times. The congestion has been a problem for years...
Andrea Gonzales, KOMU 8 Digital Producer (Nov 7, 2013). "H&M Coming to Columbia Fall of 2014". KOMU-TV8 and the Missouri School of Journalism at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Retrieved 2014-03-04. <Article has a picture of the Columbia Mall sign.>((cite web)): CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Keep In Google searches this mall is buried in links about the notoriety of the Columbia Mall in Maryland, so it helps to add a "-maryland" to a Google search. Another useful search was ["Columbia Mall TDD" OR "Columbia Mall Transportation Development District"]. I also found some leads on Google Images using ["Columbia Mall" Missouri -maryland]. Sources show that this topic with its 140 stores has the status of a regional landmark. You can see in the KOMU-TV headline above that the headline writer refers to the mall with just the word "Columbia". Topic passes WP:GNG, and it has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time. In addition, Wikipedia has a need to cover such a topic as a part of the gazetteer. I'm not seeing any problems with WP:V and WP:RS, so any such problems need to be tagged for resolution. Unscintillating (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do any of these sources establish notability? None of them go into detail about the mall.The first and second sources are about traffic around the mall, not the mall itself and the third source is just a brief article about an H&M coming to the mall, nothing about the mall itself. How are these sources significant coverage of the mall? "I also found some leads on Google Images using ["Columbia Mall" Missouri -maryland]." Like what? I found absolutely nothing. "Sources show that this topic with its 140 stores has the status of a regional landmark." Now you're getting into WP:WEASEL, please provide these sources that you mention. "You can see in the KOMU-TV headline above that the headline writer refers to the mall with just the word "Columbia"." Why is this significant? Now the way a title is worded is a basis for notability? "it has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time." Doubtful, you need a source to back that up. "In addition, Wikipedia has a need to cover such a topic as a part of the gazetteer." That sounds like WP:EVERYTHING. Me5000 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely played. However, closer analysis shows a couple of holes in your preparation, which I will get to. Where did I say that those three sources "establish" notability? Although, I suppose you could make the argument that those three alone satisfy WP:GNG. The one that you say has "nothing about the mall itself", is a report with half of the report consisting of a picture of a mall sign that says "Columbia Mall", where the sign is using a font measured in feet rather than points. One of those articles is tremendously in-depth, even drilling down and reporting sales tax revenues for the mall. With that info and along with the tax rate, you can calculate WP:RS gross sales via WP:CALC. So in your viewpoint, a WP:RS talking about traffic on Worley on Saturday's over a period of years during the Christmas shopping season is not reporting about the mall? There is just a non-notable black hole causing the traffic? So the parking lot is not the mall, and the parked cars are not the mall, and I guess the architects who built the mall, that is not the mall, and the paint on the walls and the shoppers and the employees and the owners, that is not the mall? What can reliable sources say about the mall that is the mall? Your next comment is one of the two preparation holes, because I already gave you an example of something I found via Google images. Your report was "I found absolutely nothing". When I report that the topic is a "regional landmark", and I don't say "IMO", I am indicating that although it is my opinion, I also consider it to be fact. In the first search you reported at the start of this AfD, you didn't report that the search for sources was confounded with a similarly named mall in Maryland. This is something you could have expected other researchers to encounter. You also did not note that there is a book called Columbia about the Columbia Mall. Since the Google snippet on the book Columbia doesn't quickly report what state the mall is in, you could have helped out other researchers by mentioning that this book was about the mall in Maryland. Is there a good explanation for not mentioning the other mall? So your preparation is in question here. If you haven't been able to duplicate my analysis that this is a regional landmark, you need to show that you have studied this topic enough and reviewed enough sources to recognize that there is a point to my statement. In your next sentence I see that you are not familiar with the nutshell of WP:N, which I recommend. You can say on this talk page that the nutshell is doubtful, but doing so doesn't change the nutshell. As per the nutshell, your claim, when you say that this topic is not notable, is that this mall has not attracted the attention of the world at large. Your argument, that something like only the 20 largest malls in the world should have articles, this is not a notability issue but a WP:NOT issue for WT:NOT. Until you get that changed, this will not be a policy-based argument unless you cite WP:IAR. The second preparation hole is that of not spotting an error of mine, which is that the headline writer of "H&M Coming to Columbia Fall of 2014", probably by "Columbia" meant the city and not the mall. I have redacted the statement. As for the idea that headlines and headline writers don't or can't give attention to topics, this is an oxymoron. Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You never specifically said "those 3 sources establish notability", but since the concern is notability why else would you post them? Half the report is a picture because the "report" is 5 sentences long. The picture is trivial and does not equate to significant coverage. The first two articles are about things relating to the mall and its surrounding area(taxes and traffic), does this make the mall notable? How about an article about the history of the mall? The wikipedia page's history is simply when it opened and that a single new store is coming to the mall. Surely this extremely notable mall has some more information about the history than that. Just for comparison I did a search for Walmart in the same area. I quickly and easily found 5 articles about it in the first two pages: [1][2][3][4][5]. This brings up two points, one how is this mall that has been around since 1985 so sparce on sources if it is so notable when a new Walmart that has only been open for 2 months already has 5 articles? Correct me if I'm wrong, but individual Walmart stores are not notable and do not get their own article on wikipedia, yet by your logic this Walmart passes GNG and should get its own article. I didn't realize the H&M report was from a Google images search as you didn't say that. I thought you found it with a regular web search and were talking about something else you found on google images. Still, you say you found "some leads" on Google images, indicating more than one. My search on Google images, yes shows a few pictures of the mall, but other than the one you linked, nothing reliable or independent (Apartmentfinder, flickr, etc.). I did not mention the other mall because it did not show up on my search, I simply searched columbia mall missouri without quotations and it appears you put columbia mall in quotations for your search. Without quotations the maryland mall only comes up once. The regional landmark thing sounds like original research, you are going to have to explain to me why you think this in detail and why this isn't original research, because the sources do not give any indication of it being a regional landmark. Okay, I completely misunderstood what you were talking about when you said the world at large comment, but the sources do not meet this criteria as I explained in this reply. I never said only the 20 largest malls should have articles. I knew they weren't referring to the mall when they said columbia, that's why I didn't know why you thought it was significant, I just didn't express it very well. As for the last bit, again it is because I knew they meant the city and didn't understand why you thought this wording was significant. Me5000 (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Five references for the Walmart means that the Walmart topic likely passes WP:GNG. This does not mean that the Walmart topic passes either WP:N or WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Your sources show that the store size is 3700 square feet, and that there are three other Walmarts in Columbia. WP:GNG states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article..." But looking further shows, " 'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article..." There is also the issue that the topic has not been shown to attract attention over a period of time.
As per World Wide Web, the first formal proposal for such is dated 1990. Since this mall was opened in 1985, I suggest that you look for archives of Columbia newspapers online; and if those are not available, either work with your local library to locate physical archives, or plan to visit a library in Columbia. You can also look at the reference I added today, that shows that the mall opening was still generating news 22 years later. Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree that "some leads" is equivalent to "a few pictures". Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments about "regional landmark" don't show movement. Calling it "original research", as if this is content we are discussing for an article page, is a red herring. You yourself in this AfD have used the word "research" to apply to your work. Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ray Beck (April 21, 2007). "Development along Stadium pioneering, but contentious". Columbia Business Times. The Business Times Company. Retrieved 2014-03-08. ...called regarding a proposal from General Growth Company to build the Columbia Regional Mall....Before the mall would be built, however, there were several years of debate and various proposals for a regional mall location...
Comment Another name for this mall is "Columbia Regional Mall". Unscintillating (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Following [6], and based on Typical GLA Range (Sq. Ft.), # of Anchors, Typical Number of Tenants, and Trade Area Size; it is my opinion that this topic is either a large "regional mall", or a "super-regional mall".
According to [7], this topic is a "super-regional center". Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2014 (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.