Uptown Scottsbluff: The sources cited here either contain trivial mentions of the article subject (for example, in the context of individual store closures) or they are routine , run-of-the-mill news stories about corporate changes.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 04:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Nebraska .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 04:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Uptown Scottsbluff (formerly Monument Mall) is unique in that it is arguably a struggling mall in a less populated area versus other malls that have significant competition with each other in higher populated areas like Northern Colorado .  Many malls including Frontier Mall , Foothills Fashion Mall , and plenty of others do have some of the common stories at their core, such as stories behind Sears, JCPenney, and other brands (not denying that).  There are aspects to this mall that are unique, however, including the fact the mall has mostly maintained it's aesthetic throughout the building, something which many nearby shopping malls have not done.  This mall has had (and still has) unique, local businesses such as and including E&E Gift Shop and Planet Bounce Family Fun Center (both mentioned in the Uptown Scottsbluff article) that can't/couldn't be found at other malls.  SomeMetroGuy ( talk ) 05:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ SomeMetroGuy , even if everything you said is true, for an article to be written about a topic on Wikipedia it must be notable , which means that it requires significant coverage in reliable sources .  Significant coverage means in-depth reporting on a topic, not just routine or run-of-the-mill news stories about stores coming and leaving.  Having unique stores does not make a mall notable; otherwise, every single bodega in New York City would have its own Wikipedia article.  Additionally, the fact that other Wikipedia articles have been written about similar malls does not mean that an article should be written about this one.  Those malls might be notable in their own right, or they might not be and those pages should be deleted too.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 17:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If the mall is really unique, there will be secondary sources about it.  Are you aware of any?  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sirfurboy If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't the deadmalls.com source (already cited, source 2 in the article) be one such secondary source?  SomeMetroGuy ( talk ) 02:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure that deadmalls.com is a reliable source .  In any event, multiple secondary sources are required.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 03:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Deadmalls.com is self published, so not a reliable source.  Yes, they have been interviewed on NPR, [41] but still self published.  Nothing in their article suggests any special claim to notability for this mall.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When you read that that dead malls account, it's obvious that it's a first hand account somebody wrote and submitted to the site.  So, it's primary.  James.folsom ( talk ) 23:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment First, this shouldn't be a stand alone article.  But I'm struggling because I think it could meet WP:N.  It has news coverage from local sources over a sustained period of time, is verifiable and all that good stuff.  So, I spent some time reading more about notability, and this business about notability of malls appears to be unresolved.  WP:Corp was mentioned as a goto.  But I think maybe WP:Local is better.  That deals with how to handle things that meet WP:N but aren't known outside it's locality.  WP:Local would have this merge with the city article.  James.folsom ( talk ) 17:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Shopping malls generally need to meet GNG per NBUILDING and PLACEOUTCOMES .  The reporting I've seen doesn't meet GNG, and also doesn't warrant merging this article to the Scottsbluff article in my opinion, since they're all kind of routine news stories that don't indicate that the mall is a special place rather than a place that gets reported on because it happens to be a large local business.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 17:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For several of those news articles, they are actually written about the mall.  A very clear significance policy states that the subject of a reliable source is significant coverage.  A source about another subject, that mentions the mall, EG that obit, needs to say the mall is special, otherwise you have a trivial mention instead of a significant mention.  That's the central problem that WP:LOCAL deals with.  So, if you don't want to use WP:local, then you need to show that all of the sources in that article that are written about the mall, are in fact not reliable or otherwise not eligible to make the subject notable.  I would point out that WP:LOCAL gives this power.  I do want to thank you for those policy suggestions, I will check them out.  And, again I think this is not a standalone article, but my initial foray into background suggests this is a thorny subject, and should be done carefully and correctly.  If I'm wrong, then someone tell me and I will cast a vote according to the agreed upon policy.  James.folsom ( talk ) 18:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added the mall to the Points of interest section of the Scottsbluff article.  The rest of the information contained in the article on the mall is about the different stores that have been in the mall and the mall's different owners, none of which should be added to the Scottsbluff article because stores changing in a mall is routine and Wikipedia is not a directory .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it should have a paragraph in the other article, but your right that it shouldn't be what's in the article now.  I'm hoping some good discussion occur on this.  James.folsom ( talk ) 19:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:LOCAL is an essay, not policy.  It partially quotes WP:N but leaves out this bit: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.  That is the policy.  So as well as being reliable (which many/most of these are), they should also be secondary, and none of them are secondary sources.  Per WP:PRIMARYNEWS (also an essay) and the related policy, WP:PRIMARY (see noted d), newspaper articles are primary sources.  There may also be issues with independence.  I don't think this is notable, but you made the point, I think, about WP:SUSTAINED , which says Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.  However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability .  Note that "an indicator of notability" is short of either presumed notability or GNG.  Also such coverage must still be independent.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks this is helpful James.folsom ( talk ) 22:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Now that I know what policies apply I agree this lacks coverage by secondary sources.  I can't imagine this actually having coverage from secondary sources.  And I'm having a hard time to think of what secondary source for a mall would be.  Other malls have survived AFDs, anybody know what kind of secondary sources those had?  James.folsom ( talk ) 23:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's something that throws me off at this point in the conversation.  There are malls that have articles written here on Wikipedia (have been here for years at this point) that have less coverage by any sources than this mall in Scottsbluff, or at the least, very few sources are used in those articles if other sources do exist.  That brings a new question to mind, where does the line of notability get drawn?  At least in this case, what makes a mall notable (or more notable than the rest)?  Especially since nearly any mall is likely going to have some level of notability by some, likely including the community in which it resides since it often does act as a place to gather and hang out.  SomeMetroGuy ( talk ) 01:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The line of notability is drawn at significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources.  The number of sources is not the issue, it's what those sources, combined together, say.  The articles provided here amount to "this mall exists, its ownership has changed hands, and some stores have moved in and out."  This is a run-of-the-mill mall that lacks notability.  The fact that other articles exist does not mean that this one should exist; maybe those articles should also be deleted, or maybe the sources that they do have provide significant coverage.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I am not seeing any sources that demonstrate why this mall is notable, per the discussion above.  If the mall were unique, there would be significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sourcing showing this.  We don't have the sources so it doesn't pass GNG.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don't see the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet WP:GNG Jacona ( talk ) 14:28, 30 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete