Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pentagon Row

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 No consensus, default to keep. The sources added since the beginning of the AfD provide some basis for a claim of notability, and the Google book results listed in this discussion have been added to the talk page for possible expansion later. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon Row[edit]

Pentagon Row (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable shopping mall. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this shopping center is notable enough since it is adjacent to a very well-known mall, Fashion Centre at Pentagon City, is featured in its article, and would not fit within the article for Fashion Centre. Regardless, most of the shopping centers listed under Template:DC Malls are not notable. --Old Guard (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the theory of "six degrees of separation", if everything next to something notable or mentioned in an article about something notable is considered inherently notable as a result, then everything would be notable. Then nothing would be. The argument that (something else) is an article and isn't notable is irrelevant, because if they aren't, then they're subject to deletion as well.—Largo Plazo (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dislike articles on shopping malls... as a collection of stores is a colection of stores is a collection of stores... and only have merit to the vendors selling their goods and the customers buying them. If someone cares to use these searches [1][2][3] to establish some kind of notability...? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Looking at the web page, there is nothing notable about it . Largest store seems to be Bed Bath and Beyond. . If the ice skating rink is notable, which I see no evidence of, then there conceivably could be an article about it. DGG (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Small mixed-use property, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ten Pound Hammer do you mean that there are no sources in the article or that there are no sources available? Because there are sources available. [1], [2], [3]. These Washington Post articles make it sound like a particularly notable development at least regionally.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a Keep by the way.--Samuel J. Howard(talk) 01:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep there are a number of references to Pentagon Row in books in architecture. The software breaks a link, but do a google books search for "pentagon row". Indeed, with the multiple book references and the Washington Post articles, the development meets the "being covered by multiple, independent reliable sources" for buildings, structures, and landmarks--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about local facilities in local papers are a matter of course; they don't establish notability for purposes of this international encyclopedia. Otherwise every independent coffee shop, corner bakery, scout troop, Lions Club chapter, and neighborhood branch library would be notable. I'd at least AfD an article on Murky Coffee, Randolph's bakery, or the Shirlington branch of the Arlington Library.—Largo Plazo (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about local facilities in local papers do establish that there are sources, contra TenPoundHammer--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They can certainly verify the assertions in an article, but see below re notability.—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot exclude any WP:RS simply based upon its physical location. If we did then every country Article would lose half of their references, because they are located within the mentioned country. A RS is always a RS, no matter where, or how old, it may be. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean. Countries are considered notable as a matter of fact, it seems to me; besides that, there isn't a single country in the world that hasn't been written up in newspapers, travel books, political and economic documents, etc., outside of the respective countries in quantities way beyond what's necessary to establish notability in that manner. Now, back to you: are you going to tell me that if the Sticktown local paper writes up the goings-on in Sticktown Girl Scout Troop 576 every week ("Last week the girls got a tour of the recycling center"), then Sticktown Girl Scout Troop 576 has achieved the kind of notability that makes it an obvious topic of interest in an international encyclopedia?—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you are refering to is the non-existant Local clause in WP:N Which some believe it to say "If the Reliable Source is to close in proximity to the Article's Subject, reject it". Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A policy-based follow-up so that this isn't just me making an argument: See the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria.—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking at the wrong standard. These are not organizations or companies, they're buildings, structures, and landmarks. The rough standard is "being covered by multiple, independent reliable sources."--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that perspective, but to me a mall is where I go to engage in commerce, not where I go to admire the architecture. Note that this all came about because Old Guard was filling in missing articles from a template grouping Washington-area shopping malls. To me, that's a commercial classification, not an architectural one. Also, note that the buildings article doesn't mention malls, but mentions two other kinds of places where consumers spend money, and in each of those cases it refers the reader to WP:CORP for the applicable criteria. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those two cases refer to articles about chains, which are abstract concepts and not physical buildings, thus making the WP:CORP standard appropriate. An article about McDonald's is about the chain, not the building. Similarly, an article about the developers or property managers of Pentagon Row or about one of the chain stores there would properly be judged by WP:CORP, but the structure itself is a structure. If you look at the references in Google Books, it's cited as an example of this sort of project.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - scrapes past WP:N. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Agree that a mall is a business, and needs non-local sources to show notability. Every town has a building that residents love/hate that gets into the local paper, it does not make it architechturally notable.Yobmod (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are non-local sources.
      • Professional Real Estate Development, 2nd ed., by Anne B. Frej and Richard B. Peiser, pg. 352 [4]
      • The American City: What Works, what Doesn't by Alexander Garvin, Pg 353[5]
      • Shopping Environments: Evolution, Planning and Design by pg. 61[6] and 189[7]
      • Place Making: Developing Town Centers, Main Streets, and Urban Villages by Charles C. Bohl, Dean Schwanke. (several different pages) [8]
      • Urban Land, Vol 62, pg. 104.
      • Transit-oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, And Prospects, pg. 106 [9]
      • New Urbanism: Comprehensive Report & Best Practices Guide By Robert Steuteville, Philip Langdon (5 page references) [10]
      • A reference in New Urban News[11]
      • Worthy of the Nation: Washington, DC, from L'Enfant to the National Capital Planning Commission, by United States National Capital Planning Commission, Frederick Albert Gutheim, Laura Bush, Antoinette J. Lee, pg. 382[12]
      • Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice by Jill Grant, pg. 92 [13]
      • Transforming Suburban Business Districts by A. Geoffrey Booth, Urban Land Institute, pg. 113 [14]
    • I've left out the tourist guidebook references that will be able to be used to add more verifiable information to the article, but which aren't as persuasive for notability. (There's also a couple of fiction references.) Also, I'd point out that a structure being "architecturally notable" is not the standard for notability on Wikipedia.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that of the malls I AfDed the other day, this one has plenty of indications of notability—on account of characteristics that aren't mentioned at all in the article. If the same were true of an article written about a person or a company (say, someone wrote an article about Sarah Palin saying nothing more than that she's a hockey mom from Wasilla, Alaska, who spends a lot of time in Juneau), the article would be subject to speedy deletion unless someone caught it in time and added an indication of what's notable about her (which, by the way, should be at least in the lead sentence per WP:Lead section). So right now the article looks like an article that should be deleted.—Largo Plazo (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fashion Centre at Pentagon City. I've been there, and I don't think it's very notable. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a completely separate mall. There's no reason why the Fashion Centre article would mention anything about it other than its adjacency.—Largo Plazo (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2008 (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/Pentagon_Row&oldid=1069893083"