Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfield Mall

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. Tone 15:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfield Mall

Mayfield 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)

An extinct mall turned into a private office complex. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "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.   // Timothy :: talk  03:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. (I've also brought this article closer to where I'd have it now if I'd made this for DYK this year, not 2015, with additional citations and references.) While this particular center falls below the suggested gross leasable area threshold, I believe the property has enough notable media coverage (some of which I've been able to add in the new citations), and I believe it passes GNG because of its claim to being the first enclosed and carpeted center in the US (I don't buy it, but...), presence of the largest suburban JCPenney for its time, and association with Google (which makes it a favorite of news articles talking about mall reuse). The latter is particularly unusual for a mall. Raymie (t • c) 04:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep well sourced and well written article which meets our guideline for WP:GEOFEAT. The nomination mentions "extinct mall" but our relevant guideline refutes WP:NTEMP. Nomination also suggests lack of sources, but in the article I see Bloomberg, San Francisco Examiner, Mountain View Voice, BizJournals. It is also relevant and notable that the mall was rented and purchased by Google. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, the existing sourcing is more than sufficient to establish notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply:This is an article about a mall. How is a mall that becomes an office complex still a mall? It might be relevant to an article about mall reuse, but this is an article about Mayfield Mall, not an office complex. But in either case none of the sources in the article demonstrate notability for a mall or an office complex. They are just routine news articles. Nothing that supports 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."

• " How is a mall that becomes an office complex still a mall?" Because things stop being notable once they no longer exist, right? The sourcing is about the mall and the office complex that replaced it, indicating it as a noteworthy conversion that merits discussion. Knock this off right now, you're clearly disrupting just to make a point and doubling down when it's clear that you're not getting your way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Lightburst's reasoning above. More than enough reliable sources. Esw01407 (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG, easy to find more sources like this one with interesting info on the grand opening that should go in the article. MB 23:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThe sources above and in 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  02:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Has every mall been turned into offices for Google? That's an absolutely unique and notable ending for a mall. WP:ROUTINE does not apply to buildings. Badgering editors when it's clear the tide is turned against you is completely useless. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  TenPoundHammer, just for reference, I think TimothyBlue means WP:MILL rather than WP:ROUTINE. Not saying that it's true, just that I think that's the policy Timothy is trying to apply. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even without the reuse by Google, the article establishes sufficient notability for the mall. Given how it ended, it's easily notable. The nominator in their nomination and subsequent replies seems to argue that a) notability is affected by a thing going away, which is plainly wrong; and b) that we should assume that any outcome that leads to "every mall will be notable" is a sign that we've made a mistake. I grew up in in the mid to late period of the Mall Era. Malls were central to the business and cultural life of American cities. If it turns out that ANY 500,000+ sqft. American malls, current or former, don't seem notable for our purposes, then it's likely that our guidelines and processes are wrong, not that the malls aren't notable enough. Vadder (talk) 18:00, 31 August 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.