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 no consensus. L Faraone 05:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Columbia Mall (Missouri)

Columbia Mall (Missouri) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Previous debate closed as no consensus. Based on several recent AFDs and discussions, size and wp:outcomes are no longer reasons for keeping. Sources are inadequate for GNG.

• Source 1 is a primary source
• Source 2 and 3 Hoovers source. Fine for wp:v but as a directory listing does nothing for wp:n
• Source 4 only contains one sentence about the mall doesn't help meet GNG
• Source 5 and 6 about a single store opening at the mall nothing about the mall itself
• Source 7 and 8 talk briefly about traffic around the mall and other places nothing actually about the mall itself
• Source 9 probably the best source, but still doesn't say much about the mall itself and one source isn't enough to meet GNG

I've searched using google for other sources and nothing else comes up except directory listings. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 ( talk) 21:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I looked at each of the references, and agree with Me5000's evaluation of each. They are all either perfunctory listings in directories, etc, or mentions, in-passing, embedded in an article about something else. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete – I am generally not a fan of deleting articles such as these (but, that's just me); however, the evidence that Me5000 has shown has convinced me. If it were to be kept, sourcing would need to be improved. United States Man ( talk) 04:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - is properly sourced per WP:OUTCOMES in regard to malls of this size. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 05:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• I'm not sure what that means. Are you saying two things? What do you mean by it is "properly sourced?" And what do you mean by "per WP:OUTCOMES in regard to malls of this size"? Tx. Epeefleche ( talk) 06:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• It means it meets the WP:NRVE requirement of WP:OUTCOMES for larger malls. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 23:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• WP:OUTCOMES imposes no requirements. It simply summarizes history. It says, under WP:NPLACE, Larger malls are often found to be notable [...] Size however, does not in and of itself confer notability. Nor does it abrogate the requirements set forth in GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Since wp:notability is not conferred, saying that "x does not confer notability" is a truism.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• I would add to what Roy says that this falls within the gray area as to size -- most editors at AfD it appears agree that a mall under 500K sf is small ("Very small malls ... are generally deleted unless significant sourcing can be found"), and that a mall over 1 million K (and perhaps 800K) is large, and this is in the middle where editors do not seem to have a firmly common view. As to WP:NRVE, it says "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability... No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists." (emphasis added) Are you asserting that there is such substantial coverage, rather than run-of-the-mill, every-mall-has-it coverage? Tx. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• It's hard to have a real, honest discussion when the related guidelines/essays are being modified in real time to support one side or the other. In any case, this article meets every aspect of WP:GNG; it is sourced with enough secondary, third party, reliable and independent sources having significant coverage of the subject. The disagreement appears to be over the "presumed" clause. Some presume it is and some presume it isn't. I believe that was the whole point of WP:OUTCOMES as it was previously worded, that larger malls meet the presumed clause as long as all the other WP:GNG clauses are met. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 01:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• How do you define "significant coverage"? We seem to have totally different understandings of what that means. Take, for example, the Street Talk article in The Columbia Daily Tribune. In the seventeenth paragraph, it says, The mall began as Parkade Plaza in 1965, and it was Columbia's largest shopping center until Biscayne Mall opened in 1972. In 1985, Columbia Mall opened and trumped both centers.. That's the only mention the entire article has for Columbia Mall. That's not significant coverage. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Is the problem that the further reading section is not used as actual cites? Two of them appear to have significant coverage. A stub doesn't need a huge number of cites where each meets every single aspect of WP:GNG. So I think we will have to agree to disagree. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 02:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• To Roy's point, addressing your referral to the further reading section, the very first item -- with a quote put into the article for some reason, as though to emphasize what a stretch it is to squeeze notability out of it, is "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..." Yes, that pretty much would be the sort of thing that would fail to support a GNG conclusion, as it is non-substantial and run-of-the-mill. Dramatically so. Epeefleche ( talk) 03:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Uh, that is precisely why I said two of the three. Yes, you correctly picked the other one of the three. Sure, if there were only sources like that one, then it would fail WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 04:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Then stop making people play guessing games about what you mean. If you want to bring up two specific items as evidence, then tell people specifically which items you are talking about. Presenting a list of three things and saying, "I'm talking about two of these, but I won't tell you which two" is just wasting everybody's time. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• What VMS_Mosaic said was, "[T]his article meets every aspect of WP:GNG; it is sourced with enough secondary, third party, reliable and independent sources having significant coverage of the subject."  He was also willing to talk about the "presumed" clause of WP:GNG.  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• As for your question about significant coverage, the place to look is at WP:GNG.  Significant material is that which is not trivial, where trivial is things like a listing in a phone book, or an obituary that says, "So-and-so was employed at the Columbia Mall".  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, which, although formally an essay rather than a guideline does keep track of precedent at AfD. To wit: "Larger malls are generally considered notable. Very small malls, strip malls, and individual shops are generally deleted unless significant sourcing can be found." Malls are akin to the commercial areas of small towns and serve as community landmarks. Carrite ( talk) 11:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete I am unable to find enough to ring the notability bell here. Subject appears to fail WP:GNG which is the standard and WP:GEOFEAT which is a proposed, but occasionally cited guideline. With respect to WP:OUTCOMES, this is NOT a guideline or a policy and it expressly states as much. It is just a helpful essay in which editors report their anecdotal experiences in AfD discussions.

"Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and 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." - From WP:OUTCOMES. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment. While I'm still considering this, at this point I don't see enough substantial coverage of the sort necessary to meet GNG, and don't see this meeting any of our other notability criteria. But I'm happy to wait for more evidence, if others have it. Epeefleche ( talk) 03:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment  The Missourian source includes an "eight-month-long Missourian review of records", and includes "years" of observations by one of the writers, complete with a

• a map,
• two charts, and
• four web pages of text, each individual articles. 

As stated at the first AfD, "[This article] 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."  In spite of the wealth of material here, we have editors arguing:

• "...talk[s] briefly about traffic around the mall"
• "Sure, if there were only sources like that one, then it would fail WP:GNG."
• "Yes, that pretty much would be the sort of thing that would fail to support a GNG conclusion, as it is non-substantial and run-of-the-mill. Dramatically so."

Unscintillating ( talk) 20:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment  Search suggestions are available from the first AfD. 

Unscintillating ( talk) 20:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep  As per my !vote at the first AfD, "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."  Unscintillating ( talk) 21:04, 14 June 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.