Talk:Valley View Center

message: I've marked the stores list with the NPOV tag, which may seem like a somewhat unorthodox move, but here's my rationale: What constitutes a "major" store?  Anchor stores can be fairly easily determined based on names.  If I were to guess, I'd say that the anchors are probably Dillard's, Penney's, Macy's, and Sears.  Anchor stores are fairly easily to define, and should be sectioned off on their own.  The definition of "major" troubles me somewhat.  What is the objective criteria here for defining a store as "major"?  It seems that there is none.  Is it based on square footage?  Sales?  Customer traffic?  Who knows.  We need to determine "major" in this case.  Besides that, the "major" section is bifurcated, as there are two sections for "major" retailers.  So let's rectify this...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stores list 

message: Perhaps the word to use is not "major". I think the wording should be "flagship". However, you should only use the word "Flagship" if the company considers it a flagship store. Please don't be mad at me but I'm going to re-edit the page to maje or look like a NPOV stand. Mystify85JEC 19:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I Agree with Schuminweb

message: Some major changes, perhaps long overdue, to the operation of Valley View Center appear to be about to get underway. Here's a link to an article that spells out part of what could be the beginning of the end. (Yes, that's a lot of weasel but I'll err on the side of caution here.) - Dravecky (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes ahead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dallas Midtown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427080555/http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Developing-plans-at-Valley-View-Mall-location-to-be-revealed-today-148657265.html to http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Developing-plans-at-Valley-View-Mall-location-to-be-revealed-today-148657265.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As one user has said, far less notable things have been included on Wikipedia. 
I fail to see how a video that is rapidly gaining over 100,000 views a day (897,000 since its release 4 days ago) is “non notable”. I would argue that that is a rather significant moment for a dead and demolished mall that hardly anyone would have given any thought about if not for the video. Not0nshoree (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The YouTube video added to the "in popular culture" section appears to be a low-quality video filmed by someone trespassing in the abandoned mall. I would support adding this video as an external link, if not for the extremely low-quality filming technique, which makes it unencyclopedic.  Moreover, there is nothing to support that this low-quality video has had any cultural impact, per WP:IPC.  It should be removed. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The video is actually of a 3d render of the Mall: it's entirely computer generated and tells a fictional story. I guess you only watched a little bit of it, but it's a fictional found footage horror movie set in the Valley View Centre, not a video of the real mall. The creator, Kane Parsons, has said he worked 16 hour days to complete the film, and he is mentioned on another wiki page regarding his notable computer rendered horror films (he is currently producing a film with A24 in the same style as well). Although I wouldn't say it should be added until the video receives attention beyond YouTube, it's certainly not irrelevant or low quality. AlisterSinclair (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

text: The footage is not real, if that is what you are implying. It was made to look like low-quality phone-held video. The video is part of a fictional YouTube series. Not0nshoree (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Take the time to view the video in its entity and understand the plot. The film depicts the mall as it was prior to closure (albeit as a high clarity digital recreation) as featured in several prominent media outlets, including The Dallas Morning News. As others have pointed out, the director of this video (Kane Parsons) is himself notable, and has been featured several times including ABC News (US) and has his own IMDB profile. The video itself is arguably of high quality, and what one would expect from a high-definition handheld camera (one's personal opinion on what constitutes "quality" is frankly irrelevant here anyway; The perceived video quality doesn't change what the film depicts). Rightfully so, the "In popular culture" section should remain and indeed be expanded on. 2404:E80:4FA7:16:61AD:D05C:6782:FBA0 (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll also add that the fact that this film has brought significant attention to Valley View Centre, from people outside of the USA (for what was otherwise a rather unknown mall), goes towards demonstrating its increasing notoriety.  2404:E80:4FA7:16:61AD:D05C:6782:FBA0 (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

text: "...appears to be a low-quality video filmed by someone trespassing in the abandoned mall." LOL Artificial Silence (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Do sources on the topic of this article—Valley View Center—cover this aspect? If they do not, this is fundamentally a non-starter per WP:MINORASPECT. TompaDompa (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. Although I would support adding for reasons of popular culture (the film has undoubtedly drawn attention to the mall among the public that it would not have otherwise recieved) it needs sources other than the youtube video, and as far as I can tell it has not received any as for now. If/when it does I think it would be a reasonable addition to the page, but the single sentence currently on the article is all that is necessary. This is a page about a mall, not about youtube horror trivia AlisterSinclair (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a sensible outcome. A single line or two about the notable video is all that is needed at this point. 87.121.249.119 (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Exactly. If there was a secondary source about the YouTube video (such as a news article on it), then this content would stay. But since all that's being cited is the video itself, then it fails WP:NOR. Panian513 14:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Based on this talk page, I wouldn't say there was "consensus" on this at all. I'd suggest that the primary source satisfies the purpose of the "In Popular Culture" section, as it currently stands. 2404:E80:4FA7:16:395B:FC19:E2B0:4CA9 (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

text: I don't really see and consensus whatsoever. I agree with the IP, the primary source is good enough. Daveman115 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, lots of things are filmed, it does not make them "pop culture", seems to me to violate wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Those unsourced/poorly-sourced/indiscriminate "in popular culture" sections used to be popular, but the project has mostly moved on. Anything mentioned should really be supported by reliable, secondary sources. (That excludes WP:RSPTVTROPES.) Woodroar (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

text: The primary source is not enough, current consensus requires that secondary sources must be used to support anything in a "In Popular Culture" section. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content and the 2015 RFC on the matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

text: I think there is a consensus that most people are FOR this section. There seems to be a select few who are against it. 2404:E80:4FA7:16:483C:A0E9:A7A9:5212 (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a vote. Disputes are largely resolved by following or referencing our policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The “In Popular Culture” section should stay. 

message: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2023-10-26/best-new-horror-movies-streaming-halloween-2023
"The most-talked-about new horror film of the season isn’t in theaters or on a streamer, but on YouTube. Which is why you should turn off the lights and get lost in the viral CG nightmare “The Oldest View,” the latest cinematic brain-melter from 18-year-old prodigy Kane Parsons." 2001:9E8:2D02:900:9408:AD3A:BF7B:3BD0 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that’s a good secondary source to include in the article. Increases notability. Not0nshoree (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The LA Times article doesn't even mention Valley View Center (the topic of this article) so it would be of no use as a source. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  LAT about The Oldest View. 

message: An article was published by KSII talking about this mall and its relationship with The Oldest View. https://kisselpaso.com/the-backrooms-and-beyond-exploring-creepy-urban-exploration-trends-with-kane-pixels/ Lugamo94 (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think we could call this reliable. It's a local(ish) radio station, the author ("Grizz") doesn't seem to be a recognized subject matter expert, and there's no apparent editorial structure. The piece itself is rather amateurish, mostly summarizes what's in the videos (meaning there's little actual content in his own words), and I spotted quite a few mistakes and typos (which speaks to their lack of editorial control). Woodroar (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  93.1 KISS-FM about The Oldest View