Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Centre

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

NN 410,264 sq. ft. mall. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources have been added to the article to note the history of the mall and its site predating the mall's construction and Hudson Bay's arrival at the mall. Creativity-II (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Creativity-II's additions, IMHO It could do with more sources but that can be fixed any day. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... you may want to look closely at the "sources". There are two primary sources (which don't count towards notability), and three non-RSs (a blog and another non-RS). Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only as you see them. You discount them as sources because you don't think they matter (based on dubious claims of "non-notability"), but the sources listed are relevant toward documenting the Bay Centre's history. Creativity-II (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically:

ref 1) The website of the mall. Primary sources that are not independent of the subject do not count at all towards notability. The topic has to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

"Sources" should be secondary sources. This is quite clear in wp:GNG, which 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.... "Sources" ... should be secondary sources."

ref 2) A blog, in victoriavision.blogspot.ca. Blogs are non-RSs, that do not count at all towards notability.

ref 3) A blog non-RS, vibrantvictoria.ca/forum, and one that has no substance in it. Non-RSs do not count towards notability.

ref 4) The blog non-RS Vibrant Victoria again.

ref 5) "Our History," a primary source rather than a third-party independent RS. "Sources" should be secondary sources. And look what it says about the mall -- nothing but one sentence mentioning a store in the mall. Certainly not GNG "significant coverage".

Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete (see below): ~~PRODed for lack of sources; sources have been added. Looks like it's on its way to being fixed. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

After spending an hour (literally) looking for valid sources for this article, I am deciding to change my recommendation. There is maybe one source available, although it doesn't cover most of the material in the article. It appears that, while the subject appears to actually be very important, it is not important enough for independent sources, which means it is not important enough for Wikipedia. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Withdrawing my opinion; I'm not familiar enough with notability guidelines to have a valuable opinion on this issue. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please take a look at the above, and consider that "on it's way to being fixed" is short of being there. Which is what we need to demonstrate notability -- the test at AfD. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One can look at the size of this mall, over 400,000 sq ft, and know that it is a regional mall, which based on the U.S. standards of icsc.org [1], mark it in the top 2% of centers. Regional malls impact a wide area and also tend to be venues, so wp:notability won't be a policy-based criteria for deletion...as indicated by WP:ATD, a non-notable but wp:prominent topic should be a redirect, in this case with the template "R with possibilities". In this case, I didn't quickly find a source when I looked at Google books for "Bay Centre", but I found sources on the first page of a Google books search for "Victoria Eaton Centre". Sources do not have to be listed in the article to support WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus, as reflected in the recent discussion here, is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below (at least) 500K square feet, which this is clearly below. Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a post on your talk page earlier today, and you whisked it away without a comment, and now you want to reply to me? Since I did not say anything about WP:OUTCOMES, your reply is a non-sequitur. And your theory of "consensus" at that discussion is not metrics based. But the zinger is that there is no difference between the concept of redirecting non-notable topics and not "retain[ing] stand-alone articles" in certain circumstances. However, the implied theory that we should redirect this topic because it is smaller than 500,000 sq ft is not policy-based. Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment began with a discussion of the size of the mall, and your view of its import vis-a-vis AfD. My comment replied to that, pointing to a consensus discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls" on the subject of malls of this size. Editors and the closer can all read that discussion for themselves. I recognize that your view differed from that of a number of editors. Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, you want to deflect attention from my operationally defined !vote to a fractured discussion; where you now allege to have found a "consensus"; in which, as best I can tell, the only 3 "outcomes" reported there showed the keeping of malls smaller than 500k. But you don't want to talk about the source at Columbia Mall, where you stated that the source "is non-substantial and run-of-the-mill. Dramatically so.", diff. Unscintillating (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can read the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", and make their own conclusions as to the consensus there ... and how it bears on your assertions. Epeefleche (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are back for some more, but you haven't said anything new. My !vote stands. Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Yes, it has been verified as extant. --Bejnar (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There is plenty of coverage in reliable third-party sources, in particular (not surprisingly, I would think) in the Times Colonist. "Passport office secures mall space", "Bay Centre to offer top-floor office space", "Bay Centre exterior getting major upgrade" and off-line sources such as "Victoria retail sales showing strong rise: Bay Centre businesses experienced double-digit growth for most of 2007", Wilson, Carla. Times - Colonist, 27 May 2008: B1; "Victoria's Bay Centre unveils electric car chargers in parkade", Denton, Don. Victoria News, 4 July 2013; "Bay Centre sold to U.S. company: City landmark estimated to have fetched at least $90 million", Kloster, Darron. Times - Colonist, 14 May 2010: A1; "Eatons: cross-country renovation (Toronto Eaton Centre; Pacific Centre; Calgary Eaton Centre; Polo Park; Victoria Eaton Centre; Rideau Centre; Yorkdale Shopping Centre)", Brunet, Robin. Award Magazine: Architecture, Construction, Interior Design 15.1 (Feb 2001): 59. And so on. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this all run-of-the mill stuff you would see in regard to any non-notable mall? City paper says the passport office is in the mall, that space is available for rent, that its outside is getting a fix-up, and the like? Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are looking for, then. This is the kind of stuff that gets written about malls. Non-notable malls, per Wikipedia guidelines, don't get multiple newspaper and magazine articles written about them. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't they? I don't tend to think that a mall well below the wp:outlines 500K mark is notable simply because local city papers say the mall got the passport office to rent space, is fixing up its outside, and has space available for rent. That's not substantial coverage, but rather trivial coverage. The sort of coverage that would qualify a mall as notable would be coverage that indicates that it is a large mall (e.g., the largest mall in the province, or over 800K sq ft), or the oldest mall in the province, or the mall is unique in some fashion. And the coverage should be substantial coverage by media outside the local city (The source's audience must also be considered. Attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability).

Offering up an article on the fact that the mall's exterior is being painted, and its washrooms are being spruced up, as indicia of notability seems like somewhat of a stretch. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG per Paul Erik's commentary.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:34, 19 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.