Wikipedia talk:Notability (shopping centers)

message: Good start. This is a growing problem that has needed to be addressed for a while. Denni talk 01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A reasonable thought, but why do we need this instead of just continuing to apply WP:CORP.  I've always used WP:CORP as my standard for Mall AFDs, and never encountered a problem it didn't cover adequately.  Malls are (almost if not always) businesses, so fall within the scope of that guideline.  What need is there for an additional guideline?  I think this could work as just an essay.  GRBerry 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: [edit conflict] It is a good start.  Some of the wording in the criteria is murky, though.  Take criterion 2, for instance:  what, exactly, does "significant cultural, social and economic impact on the local and regional market area" mean?  I am particularly concerned that "significant economic impact on the local area" might easily be interpreted as a blanket keep.  Normal selling operations should not be taken as indicative of notability.  And how much depth is "sufficient depth"?  That seems pretty subjective.  It's probably also worth noting that criterion 4 will practically always be subsumed in criterion 1, as the architecture or history is only notable if there exist independent reliable sources remarking upon it.  I'm not sure a guideline separate from WP:CORP is really warranted, in any case; aren't malls businesses? Shimeru 02:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My entire point is that there needs to be an expansion or spin-off of WP:CORP to specifically address this issue, which seems to be a long standing point of contention. Several articles have been deleted which could have been fixed and made acceptable if the right research was done. And why not keep an article on a specific mall if it is indeed culturally, socially, or economically of great significance? Such significance can be proven with secondary sources. My argument, as posted on DRV, VPP and elsewhere over the past 2-3 days has been that several individual malls do possess such significance and deserve coverage on Wikipedia. Not everyone agrees with me; I am trying to move the debate forward.--Msr69er 02:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shimeru, I would also beg to disagree somewhat with your assertion that "normal selling operations should not be taken as indicative of notability"; if a mall changes the normal selling patterns of a community so much that there is a major demographic shift in the community over time - as has happened numerous times in the Phoenix, AZ area - then that phenomenon IMO is most certainly notable in the direct context of the mall in question, and would establish notability, especially if there were newspaper articles written specifically about the shift, as in, for example, "Metrocenter causes stores along Dunlap Avenue to shut down; neighborhood falling into decline." Often in the Phoenix area when a new mall opens, everyone shops at the new mall and sales tend to fall so precipitiously at older malls there is literally fear among civic leaders that the neighborhood will decline.--Msr69er 02:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe that that sort of thing serves to establish any notability beyond a purely local level.  Stores open; other stores close.  This may be important to the community, but it is not generally important in the larger view.  (Bona fide exceptions will have plenty of coverage in reliable sources beyond the purely local.)  In such a case, it would be more appropriate to briefly mention the mall and its economic effects at the appropriate locality's article.  Encyclopedic notability, in my view, usually suggests a broad impact.  Allowing this kind of "local economic impact" to be a keep criterion would mean that this essentially says "keep [practically] all malls."  I do not support circumscribing WP:CORP to that extent.  I suggest removal of the words "local and" from criterion 2; regional impact (eg., a US state or at least a large segment of one) is a much better argument for notability than local impact. Shimeru 05:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I looked at the Wiilowbrook article. I counted nine outside credible and verifiable references including the excellent ICSC link. If anyone calls this article improperly sourced, I would immediately disagree. What would also interest me would be further discussion on any impact the mall has had on the local area, i.e., if any other malls or local town "main street" districts were affected as a direct result (similar to the mention of the early Waldenbooks location). Also, do people in the area like to go to this mall rather than, say, Macys Herald Square? In the Western states, malls sucked the life out of downtown retailing districts after the 1960's except for San Francisco and maybe Seattle. This would be a part of the economic and maybe social significance aspect I am referring to.--Msr69er 02:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am delighted to see this draft guideline for malls. In my heart and in my head I know that some malls are notable as the largest, the oldest, the one which established a trend, the one which destroyed the old downtome businesses, etc, but with all the recent deletion debates. I felt the lack of any bright-line standards to cite in Keep of Delete comments. A mall is far more than a corporation, so WP:CORP provides inadequate guidance. A mall is less notable as a CORP and more notable as a venue wherein numerous CORPs try to extract money from the consumers' wallets. It is where many old people hang out during the day and where young people hang out in the evening. A mall may be an important part of the area culture. What I look for here is guidelines to help distinguish between ho-hum neighborhood strip malls and important malls such as Water Tower Place, Mall of America, the one mentioned in the song Valley Girl and others which would cause a reasonable Wikipedia editor to say, "Oh, yeah, I've heard of that mall. I guess it deserves an article," even if they are from the other end of the state or of the country. Maybe it's like when a teacher grades on the curve: pick the malls which would barely qualify for inclusion, then note their annual revenue or leasible square footage and make that the cutoff, absent any overwhelming historical or architectural value. As a first move, I propose 900,000 square feet of leasible space. This is on the basis that the article Shopping mall says "Super-regional malls are usually shopping centers with over 1 million square feet of retail space, and which serve as the dominant shopping venue for the region in which they are located." So this standard should allow articles for regional malls or those close to them in size. This is also about 1/10 of the retail square feet of the largest mall in the world, so it does not seem too restrictive and exclusionary. Edison 05:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good start 

message: I really think we should make this a part of WP:LOCAL or maybe WP:ORG; otherwise, we'd be getting an overdose of overly-specific guidelines. (Radiant) 10:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Feedback is requested on this (proposed) guideline about articles on "local" places, such as churches, historic buildings, malls, masts, neighbourhoods, parks, schools, stations, and streets. Please respond to its talk page rather than here. Thank you. (Radiant) 16:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Places of local interest]] 

message: The first criterion reads
Shopping centers are usually notable if the scope of activities is currently and/or historically large enough in scale to warrant multiple, non-trivial published works of credible and reliable secondary source material to be written about it, produced independently of the mall owner or developer. Malls at or larger than one million square feet (93000 square meters) of gross leasable area fall under this category in many cases. Because of the commercial nature of malls, such sources are much more likely to come from the popular press (i.e, newspapers) rather than peer-reviewed journals and/or scholarly books, although scholarly sources do exist in a few cases. Such information should be nevertheless able to be verified by a third party source.
[emphasis added by me]
The bolded langauge seems to come close to suggesting that malls should be kept because "this number is big" and had been cited as such at least once in AfD . Is floor area meant to be a substitute for mentions in reliable sources? JChap2007 02:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you in this regard- 1,000,000, while a nice, round number, is also an arbitrary one. However, aside from that provision, I generally like WP:MALL a great deal. I feel it's quite well-written, with only this exception. -- Kicking222 21:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the "million square foot of GLA criterion for a regional mall" criterion somewhere described as an industry standard, but now I can't find it. While looking for it I found  which has some interesting numbers for the total of regional and super regional shopping centers compared to the total number, They also say there are 2093 malls in the US over 350,000 square feet of gross leasable area. There are 1689 regional malls in the US with 35 stores or more, which is also an area for setting standards. I'm still looking for definitions of "regional mall"  and "superregional mall." There are apparently 37,500 shopping centers in the US, including all the smallest, and I'm betting that we want criteria which would tend to keep the regional malls or a subset of them and screen out the local ones (unless a little one has lots of notability: Hemingway founded it, Picasso decorated it, it won architectural awards, it is constantly the subject of national news stories.)  Edison 22:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ICSC at  calls one a regional mall if it is 400,000 to 800,000 and a superregional if it is above 800,000 (presumably gross leasable area) and they total 1182 regional and superregional in the US. They say there are 611 larger than 800,000 square feet. So the million square foot number would screen out all but a few hundred, but I have not found any industry basis for using it.  says a 108,000 square meter (1,162,000 sq ft) new mall in Brazil is considered "superregional." I suppose the million square foot area should be decreased to 800,000 to allow some presumption of notability for "superregional" malls. Edison 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the consensus is to go with super-regional for a size criteria, then I'd rather see the criteria point to the definition used by ICSC.  Or we can point to the super-regional mall article. This takes us out of the numbers games.  Vegaswikian 01:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added the ICSC sizes to the shopping mall article, so that could be used as reference rather then placing a hard guideline here. Vegaswikian 03:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we just leave it at multiple nontrivial reliable source mentions? I think that would work far better then just a number of square feet. Seraphimblade 14:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think dropping a size requirement entirely and going strictly on non-trivial sources ought to take care of it and keep us out of trouble.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there is no longer a need for a size in this guideline.  As a general rule, the super-regional malls should merit an article on that fact alone. All things being equal in terms of coverage, the super-regional mall should have an easier job proving it merits an article then a strip mall.  Vegaswikian 18:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hate to see vanity articles about the corner strip mall even if there were several articles about it in the local paper. "Trivial" seems to be in the mind of the editor arguiing for or against deletion. Where is there an objective definition of it?  If an 8 store strip mall was in the paper in a town of 100,000 because there was a big zoning dispute when it was built ("Neighbors say the fast food store being open until midnight will shatter the peace and quiet of their residential neighborhood") then there are random stories about it over the next 10 years: ("Strip mall provides first jobs for minorities in the neighborhood." "Neighbors say they wished the old church had never been torn down to build the strip mall." "Strip mall holds 5th annual limbo contest and street fair." "Strip mall is magnet for gang members to hand out in parking lot") Each story is nontrivial, and they are multiple and independent, but I just can't see it as being encyclopedic, when it is only one of 20 strip malls in the medium sized town.  It is eaasier in a deletion debate to just say "Sorry, too little. Mention it in the article for the town per WP:LOCAL." Edison 18:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One million square feet (Blue Light Special in Aisle 3: Marked down to 800,000 square feet!!!)

message: I removed a  tag which had been added today by Radiant, who commented "(, debate has died down, mostly superseded by WP:LOCAL anyway) " Radiant has also placed a {Merge} tag to  merge this with WP:Local. In some cases, such as WP:CONG this "merge" consisted of replacing all the thoughtful guidelines with a simple redirect to the other guideline. WP:LOCAL would tend to eliminate articles about shopping centers and give them a brief mention in the article about the town they are in. Many shopping malls have survived AfDs, just as many have not, showing that some in fact posess the notability needed to have their own articles. This proposal was created to help provide guidelines for such Afds so we did not start each one from scratch. Please indicate below with a Keep-further discussionKeep-Implement' or a Merge-Historical vote what your preferences is. Keep could also note whether you feel this proposal is ready to be implemented as a Wikipedia guideline. Edison 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll on historical interest only

message: It is time to move towards a consensus on whether or not WP:MALL is a guideline worth having on Wikipedia. Discussions have been ongoing for the last month or so. I have tried to step back and let other interested folks take over the debate: a poll, which seemed to me perfectly acceptable as a way to move towards closure on this issue, was closed.
In my opinion the debate will drag on and on unless action is taken soon. The whole point of making WP:MALL was to provide clarification on shopping mall articles on Wikipedia; and to serve as a guide for writing/editing shopping mall articles which are solid enough as regards to notability to withstand a request for deletion and/or a speedy delete. IMO, neither WP:LOCAL nor WP:CORP adequately address malls in sufficient depth on their own.
I am coming from the position that many individual shopping malls are arguably notable (and deserve coverage on Wikipedia) and that such notability can be proven satisfactorily.
1. Should this guideline be formally adopted?
2. Should it (or portions) be merged into WP:LOCAL? Why or why not?
3. Do we need to have a request for review so outside parties can study the issue, if we can't agree on it?
I await your comments. Thanks a lot.--Msr69er 02:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in regards to #1, yes, I believe this should ultimately be formally adopted.  I've placed the proposed-guideline template on the page itself to that end.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we move towards consensus? 

message: *I am closing this per WP:NOT a democracy, m:Polling is evil, and WP:POLL. It is terribly annoying to see so many Wikipedians starting polls over disputes that could be settled with consensus. I welcome input on my decision to close this, albeit rather unnecessary, straw poll. Yuser31415 00:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: De-archiving

message: Once more people misunderstand  as a decree or an attack or something. THAT IS NOT AT ALL WHAT IT SAYS. It says that at present, there is no debate here, and indeed when I put it here there was no debate here. THAT IS ALL. Now there is once more debate here so it's no longer historical. What is it that's so hard to understand about that tag? >Radiant< 09:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It got the discussion into gear again, that's good! I don't think anyone's trying to say you did anything wrong, I certainly don't think you did-just that maybe there was more left to discuss. Seraphimblade 09:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The big X, and the statement that is "kept only for historical interest" clearly seem to say that the tagged proposal is not going to be adopted. It looks like "consensus by one person tagging" that a proposal is rejected. Maybe a lack of new discussion means there is no more controversy. How often do we have to add a comment for you not to place that template? I see that WP:LOCAL had no new discussion from 8/10/06 to 9/1/06 and it escaped "Historical interest only" tagging. Is there a similar tag to be slapped on a proposal that says "Accepted by consensus and now an official guideline?" I do not really understand the mechanics of determining whether there is consensus, since some editors get very upset by straw polls. Edison 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At WP:PORNBIO they  had a straw poll and 6 contributers agreed it was ready to be a proposal. No one jumped in to announce that "Straw polls are prohibited." Others disagreed that the straw poll had the effect of making it a guideline. , and then it was claimed that it was ready to be a guideline because more than 13 people had cited it over an 87 day period in 150 Afds. In the project page for WP:N  On Sept. 7, 2006 Radiant created the proposed guideline WP:N. Radiant said that unanimity is not required for consensus .  After discussion and collaborative editing and some dissension,(such as we have had here) On Sept. 23, 2006 Radiant declared that WP:N was a guideline by posting a tag that said it was, with the comment "per talk page; this page is simply a description of the status quo).)" and later restored the Guideline tag a few times after other edtors disagreed and removed it. So from those precedents, it looks like those who think WP:MALL should be a guideline should just tag it as such and start referring to it in AfDs where it is relevant. I agree that straw polls can never make it so, so just start treating it as one, if it appears to be the opinion of most (but not necessarily all) that a consensus exists. Edison 00:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigh 

message: I am of the opinion that the first criteria, which starts off by claiming "shopping centers are usually notable if the scope of activities is currently and/or historically large enough in scale to warrant multiple, non-trivial published works of credible and reliable secondary source material to be written about it..." is too inclusive.  This criteria essentially boils down to "the mall is notable if several published works exist which specifically discuss the mall rather than simply mention it in passing."  The problem is that virtually all malls are going to have several, 'non-trivial' sources written about them.  Malls are always major commercial centers and virtually every mall will have articles published in all the local papers and magazines when the mall is built, opened, changes ownership or has an event.  Since local papers and magazines are going to almost necessarily have a number of articles specifically discussing particular malls in their locale perhaps we should make it so that at least one of these non-trivial sources has to come from a non-local publication... Thoughts? --The Way 04:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we discussed that, but perhaps we should make it clearer. I would be of the opinion that articles looking at when the mall will be built or completed should be counted significantly less-many papers will print "blurbs" about a new shopping mall. I think what we should really look at, in terms of deciding source triviality, is: If we write solely from sourced material, is there enough secondary-source material about the subject to write a comprehensive article, or just a few paragraphs? Fifteen blurbs, each which only state that the mall is being built, its approximate cost, and its projected completion date, would still be properly seen as trivial under this criterion-not enough material exists in those sources to write the article. Seraphimblade 04:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do others think about requiring that at least one source be from something that can't be considered 'local' in relation to the mall?  It seems to me that if a mall really is notable then it's going to get some attention from published sources outside of the city its located in. --The Way 04:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't necessarily go for that. My main concern is, "Can a good, solid, comprehensive article be written, using only reliably sourced information?" If the mall has received sufficient coverage, local or otherwise, we should go ahead and write. On the other hand, extra-local coverage could easily be trivial-say, for example, a paper running a comparison of randomly-selected malls nationwide, or coverage of a shooting that happened there. All notability should be concerned with is "Can we write a decent article only using sourced material, or do insufficient sources exist?" Where those sources come from is largely irrelevant. How much usable information they contain and how reliable they are is what is absolutely critical. Seraphimblade 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newspapers usually run articles about shopping malls that say "The Grayfields Mall has lost one of its anchor store with the closing of the 150,000 square foot Sears store" or "Grayfields Mall is to be expanded from 900,000 square feet to 1,200,000 square feet and a new parking garage will be built, along with new landscaping, at a cost of $4,000,000." In each case, the mall is the primary subject of a story in an independent, reliable and verifiable source. These stories are somehow discounted in deletion debates as "being about the store rather than the mall" or "being just press releases that the paper automatically prints."  I do not elieve that newspapers automatically and thoughtlessly reprint press releases as news stories without subjecting them to editorial review, any more than they automatically pront news stories about individuals who want to be in the news, unless it is in fact news which is of interest to the readership and of importance to the community. I feel that such stories are in fact good sources for writing an article, and that if there are enough of them it meetes the requirement for having independent reliable and verifiable sources. In contrast, we have articles for characters in fiction such as  Hermione Granger or Doctor McCoy, not to mention 493 Pokemon characters, which are sourced to the work of fiction, interviews with the author, or the game or game manual (hardly independent) or to fan sites (hardly reliable), and which are original research, but they get a pass because they are interesting to the young, tech oriented editors of Wikipedia in contrast to boring real life things like malls, churches, choral groups, or libraries. It is not right to discount each newspaper or magazine article about a mall as "trivial" while we have literally hundreds of thousands of articles without any sources at all, and hundreds of thousands more sourced only to the website of the subject, or to unreliable nonindependent sources such discussed above for fiction/game characters, plots, locations, or weapons. If a story says "3 hurt in escalator accident at Grayfields Mall" or "Big Christmas sale at Grayfields starts with arrival of Santa" I agree that the mall is not really the primary subject; the accident or the sale is the subject. The exception would be if the accident went on to describe the crumbling infrastructure of the mall, the leaking roof, mold in the foodcourt, etc. If an article discusses building of the mall, sales increases or decreases based on improvements or increasing competition,or the mall taking business away from the old downtown stores, then the mall is the primary subject. Wikipedia is not paper, and we do not need to eliminate well sourced articles about malls even if some find them boring. "ILIKEIT" is not a valid basis for keeping poorly sourced Pokemon articles and deleting mall articles. Edison 17:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I apply "IHATEIT" to Pokemon articles instead? I agree that those are problematic (to put it the nicest way I can), as are the thousands of garbage articles on minor fictional characters and places. However, "other garbage articles are here" is not a valid keep reason either. I have no issue with a good article on a mall. If there's enough coverage that we can comprehensively treat the mall's impact on and importance to its area, history, and the like, we can have a decent article on it and I'd never in a million years argue to delete it. Press releases might be applicable as sources if used according to the cautions for any primary source written by the subject, but it's certainly not applicable for notability, any more than any primary source is. Notability requires nontrivial secondary sourcing, and something written by the subject is primary. Also, I imagine that all malls are of interest to their community. However, the newspaper is writing for that community. Here, we're writing for the world, and we must ask ourselves "Is this of interest to the community which we write for (a global audience), or a significant fraction thereof? Can we contribute anything that visiting the mall's website would not tell anyone? Is the secondary sourcing primarily taking interest in the mall itself, or in something of interest which happens to be at the mall? Can there ever be a comprehensive, well-sourced article about this mall? Will there ever be? I would most certainly agree that some malls are notable, and that if they are, they should have an article. What we shouldn't be having, though, is articles on malls because they're of interest to someone. What's special about it? WP:NOT a directory, of malls or anything else. We are an encyclopedia which writes on subjects which are notable, verifiable, and of interest to a sizeable portion of a worldwide audience. There must be a clear bar. If allowing in malls which have received solely local coverage regarding closure of stores and such, we're dangerously close to a "categorical keep"-that fits almost all malls, if not all period. Seraphimblade 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The size criterion of 800,000 square feet of Gross leasable area, corresponding to the definition of a superregional mall by International Association of Shopping Centers, will tend to screen out many small malls which have nothing else going for them. And I want to go back to Wikipedians' frequent claim that you may not take note of the hundreds of thousands of garbage articles whose being kept does not appear to be in question when arguing that for the retention of sourced articles about boring real world things. If the teacher gives me an F on my homework because I got 5 math problems out of ten wrong, but gives an A about half the students in the class who never turned in the homework or turned in blank paper, I would not accept the reply that I can't cite their deficiencies as an argument for why I shouldn't fail. There is clearly one standard for boring real world things and a different one for  shiny things which amuse young technorati editors, and this is inconsistent with the stated policies of Wikipedia as to what has to be demonstrated to justify keeping an article. Boring things have to meet and exceed the requirements; shuny things just have to meet the "ILIKEIT" criterion, and we are not supposed to notice that. It is not just that a few garbage articles about cartoon characters or Pokemon characters or kids with a band haven't made their way into the deletion process yet. It is more like a speed cop who only tickets people of one race for speeding. It is bias. Edison 19:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree entirely.  I would add, Edison, that if you'd like to nominate some of those unsourced "shiny" articles for deletion, you'd have my support.  At best, sources would be found, improving the article.  Second-best, there might be a reasonable shot for some of it to be deleted.  I would like nothing better than to see "multiple secondary sources" become Wikipedia policy for all articles. Shimeru 20:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria 1 Too inclusive 

message: What does it take to get this proposal to show up in the box with other active proposals such as WP:CONG at WP:N? I do not see how to edit it. Edison 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a template.  I've added this proposal as "Shopping centers and malls" -- perhaps that will attract some more discussion. Shimeru 22:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * See proposal to reject this guideline below. --Kevin Murray 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing of active proposals at [[WP:N]]

message: Several mall stubs that have been being speedy-deleted by various admins, but were then all undeleted by Rebecca, are up for deletion review to decide if they should have been undeleted or not.  Any interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion. --Elonka 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion review

message: It seems like this proposal is going nowhere and should be rejected deleted to avoid confusion.  --Kevin Murray 00:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus to reject 
delete
 this proposal 

message: Note: these might be of interest if a similar subject-specific guideline is created in the future.
*Starting March 4, 2007
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hickory Ridge Mall March 4, 2007. 865,000 sq ft of GLA=SuperregionalEdison 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AFDs involving malls relevant to usefulness of this proposed guideline.

message: * Comment This information might be better represented in a table format. Do you folks know how to do that?  If not, I can take a stab at it this weekend. --Elonka 22:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: per discussion at Talk:Shopping mall the "regional" classification for 400,000 to 799,999 sq ft and "super-regional" for 800,000 sq ft and over are limited, strictly speaking, to the U.S., per the ICSC (2004) definitions in the ref list at that article. The ICSC (1999) definitions made no such national limitation. There is supposed to be an ICSC nomenclature for Europe, and that does not apply to Australia, for instance. Such comments have now been removed from the above table for non-US centers. Edison 17:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the table, nice job.  :)  I'd also like to see some information on speedy deletes/redirects, especially those that were reviewed at DRV. --Elonka 19:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New malls listed for AFD can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Malls, but there is no guarantee all such AFDs will show up there. Edison 20:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note Because of increased RealLife demands on my time from a job, and because of the desire to spend time on administrative duties as a newly promoted administrator on Wikipedia, I will no longer be able to add all shopping center AFD nominations and results to this list, but it can be kept for reference as to deletion decisions for the time period it covered, to see what tended to survive and what tended to be eliminated, should there be a new effort to state notability standards for malls. Edison 16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD results in table form for easy viewing

message: User:Radiant! requested a third opinion on the matter of the inclusion or otherwise of the rationale for rejection on a number of project pages.  I believe that given this is quoting directly from WP:POL, this is duplication, and is not necessary.  However, if User:Kevin Murray feels that other editors may be in doubt over the matter of why the pages are considered rejected, it may be appropriate to leave a note on this talk page (possibly under the "rejected" header above).  Chris cheese whine 10:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3O]] 

message: I would like to reconsider the lists of businesses usually a part of shopping mall articles. WP is not a directory, an there is no purposes in having every store listed. I could understand the anchors, for to some extent they determine the importance and set the economic class. But the others are linkfarms for the companies listed. DGG 03:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Shopping Mall Project could do the same kind of standard setting as the US Roads project, to try and keep all such articles up to a good level of quality. As is, it would be a matter of going to each individual article and seeking to delete the individual store listings as "nonencyclopedic." (Edited to clarify)Lists of the minor routine branches of nationwide stores at a mall seem less than encyclopedic and hard to keep up to date, since the little stores change more often than the anchors. Edison 05:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I'm thinking - we need a shopping mall project to set standards on all these various shopping center articles.  I've proposed expanding WikiProject Dead Malls into a full shopping center project (i.e. all malls, not just defunct ones) in the past, but I've never gotten any feedback on such a large expansion yet.  Thoughts?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think this is a great idea! --Kevin Murray 16:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a great idea. Edison 17:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is done.  I have submitted a name change, but I think this will be a great way to revamp this inactive project.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: contents of articles

message: Should we convert this page from a rejected proposal to an essay?  Edison says we should.  I say we shouldn't.  Can we come to some sort of consensus on this?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I thought of labelling it an essay is that when an article about a shopping mall is put up for deletion on AFD, it is much more straightforward to refer to an "essay WP:MALL" than to refer to "rejected notability guideline proposal WP:MALL" I do not see that the text of WP:MALL need be any different in the two cases. See WP:NOTNEWS for a recent prior precedent. Edison 00:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that making this an essay is a good idea.  --Kevin Murray 00:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I should clarify my reason for not wanting to do a straight relabel of this as an essay.  My main concern is that I want the rejected proposal and its discussion to remain separate for historical purposes.  However, would anyone be averse to making a new essay regarding shopping centers, and moving WP:MALL to that title?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and changes in community opinion come slowly. what received minority support a year ago may receive greater support nowDGG (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convert to essay? 

message: From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottsdale Mall: Nominated 17 August 2007. Selected comments bearing on general issues of mall notability:
*Delete view - notability requires multiple, independent sources attesting that there is something special or different about this mall (i.e. notable) or that something newsworthy happened here. This article  has none of these. Simply existing or being a large mall is not enough. Bridgeplayer 04:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mall notability general discussions in AFDs