Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Arcos Mall

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Los Arcos Mall

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Los Arcos Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A demolished mall in Scottsdale AZ that operated from 1969-1999. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. A single reference is about the opening, most of the article appears to be WP:OR, except basic facts about when it opened and it's demolition.   // Timothy :: talk  06:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There will be just as much coverage, if not more, than for Tri-City Pavilions. Los Arcos died at a similar time, and then the property became a hugely notable political football because it was proposed as a sports arena site. Keep and please slow down because we're not going to have time to make improvements at the pace your AfDs are requiring. Raymie (t • c) 07:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Raymie:: How is what was done with the property after the mall closed/demolished related to the mall? And how would the way the land was used after the mall closed/demolished provide evidence of historic, social, economic, or architectural importance? The controversy above should be addressed in the article about the sports arena or the city. WP:NBUILD requires evidence of historic, social, economic, or architectural importance.   // Timothy :: talk  07:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's status as the first mall by large developer Westcor stands as a reason for notability. Note that if you look at the property list on their page, while Scottsdale Fashion Square is *older*, it was not built by them, and only acquired in 1982. Pokemonprime (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Pokemonprime:: Being the first mall by large developer Westcor does not make this mall notable. It might impact the notability of Westcor, but has nothing to do with the historic, social, economic, or architectural importance of this mall per WP:NBUILD.
  • Keep, sourcing is far beyond routine, notability is easily asserted. TimothyBlue is clearly invoking WP:POINT here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: The article contains one source, it is routine news coverage about the mall opening. A WP:BEFORE search online and in newspapers.com shows only routine coverage of events such as openings and closing, the decline of the mall, advertising. Coverage that every mall would receive. Nothing that establishes either WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD.
None of the keep votes has bothered to !vote with sources, evidence or guidelines. The argument that being "the first mall by large developer Westcor" is notable is nonsense. Keep votes are not providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV because there is none.
There is nothing pointy about this TenPoundHammer, if you feel otherwise, ANI is your recourse but prepare for a boomerang based on WP:DISCUSSAFD: "When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive." The closer is going to look at the sources, evidence and guidelines, and nothing else.   // Timothy :: talk  15:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TimothyBlue: FYI, I have expanded this article dramatically. It now has 67 references and discusses the lengthy history of this property and redevelopment. Raymie (t • c) 21:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments by TPH, Pokemonprime, MB, and Raymie. It seems that GNG is greatly established here, and in any case, that supersedes NBUILD, a specific-notability guideline. I'll copy what I said in a similar nomination because it also applies here: The references in this page are definitely not mere directory listings or routine coverage. It may have seemed that way prior to the recent edits, but not in the current condition of the article. epicgenius (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe sources added to the article are all routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. They do not establish notability. Every mall will have lots of routine coverage because they seek it out as advertising. If this type of coverage makes a mall notable, then every mall will be notable.   // Timothy :: talk  02:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TimothyBlue: This mall didn't need to seek out routine coverage—particularly in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The hockey arena plan was an extremely memorable and high-profile situation; it made the front page of the Republic on a number of occasions. Name me another mall that resulted in the sale of an NHL franchise! I'm just going to let reviewers decide if the expansion and additional sourcing support notability for this topic. Raymie (t • c) 03:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:ROUTINE, even if it were policy, does not apply to buildings. This one clearly passes WP:GNG, and it wouldn't have fallen foul of WP:ROUTINE even if it did apply. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for closer: since there is an RfC currently under discussion at AfD about what is considered proper sourcing for determining mall notabiity, it may be worth holding these open until that is finished. If a close is made, it would be very helpful for the RfC if you could explain how you evaluated the sources in terms of notability, routine, run of the mill coverage, and how you feel voting and !voting influenced this AfD. Thank you,
  • Keep per WP:HEY. This looks like it could be a GA sometime soon? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Los_Arcos_Mall&oldid=977213375"