Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Boulevard at the Capital Centre

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) 14:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Boulevard at the Capital Centre[edit]

[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)

A demolished mall that existed from 2003 to 2017. Over half the article is about the mall being torn down. 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." 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. Sources in the article are leasing info, a Contact Us page, a census tract page, and an article about it being torn down. // Timothy :: talk 06:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, user clearly does not know what WP:ROUTINE means and is clearly invoking WP:POINT by nominating as many shopping mall articles as humanly possible. The coverage is far beyond WP:ROUTINE, which itself is not policy anyway. None of the coverage is "such things as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism... Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs...the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers". The fact that the center is defunct is irrelevant; things do not stop being notable when they cease to exist. TimothyBlue keeps throwing around the word "routine" but failing to prove how any of said coverage is supposedly routine. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply None of the sources in the article support either WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. They are WP:ROUTINE news coverage of announcements such as openings, closings, events, promotions, "common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out." The keep vote has not provided any sources or evidence that this mall is notable. Below demonstrates that the sources do not show notability, a search of newspapers.com will show nothing either.

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
"Leasing information". Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust Inc. Retrieved 17 January 2012.	This is leasing information. It does not provide any information about notability.	✘ No
"2010 CENSUS - CENSUS BLOCK MAP (INDEX): Lake Arbor CDP, MD." U.S. Census Bureau	This is a census tract map. It contains no information about the mall	✘ No
Contact Us." The Boulevard at the Capital Centre. Retrieved on September 9, 2018.	This is a contact us page	✘ No
It's on: Demolition begins at Boulevard at Capital Centre in Largo". Washington Business Journal	This is routine news coverage about something being torn down. It discusses nothing related to the notability of the mall	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

This is a non-notable mall. // Timothy :: talk 15:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ROUTINE does not apply to places and structures, solely to events. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added plenty of legit sources to the article with a 5-minute search on Proquest. @TimothyBlue:, are you aware that any active Wikipedian with 500+ edits gets a free Proquest login through WP:TWL? Please avail yourself of this resource, so that when you do your WP:BEFORE check, you are also seeing the news coverage available there. A fair source table would include all of those articles, not just the handful of crappy sources that were in the article when you nominated for deletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:40, 1 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.