Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodburn Company Stores
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 per consensus. I trust nobody will have an issue with me closing even though I opined here as my close goes with consensus and not with my personal opinion. Even ignoring the sockpuppet !vote below, consensus is still fairly clear here.--Isotope23 talk 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Woodburn Company Stores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
An outlet mall in Oregon. Only assertion of notability is a seemingly gratuitous superlative cited to a company news release, which seems to be somewhat misleadingly cited anyway ("one of Oregon’s top destinations among individual and group travelers" does not imply "one of Oregon's most popular tourist attractions", it probably just means they get a lot of shoppers); the news release itself describes an award from a regional marketing organization they are members of. Given that the page has also been regularly used to post attacks against the company (see page history), I'm tempted to just remove the badly sourced assertion and then speedy the article under CSD A7. However, since that smacks of wikilawyering and since it would be nice to have a more binding decision (as I'd expect the user(s) posting the attacks will try to recreate it), I'm instead sending it here for evaluation. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable outlet mall, nothing special about it. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Keep, sufficient sources have been added to establish notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just another outlet mall. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Has received coverage from WP:RSs, but someone has been removing that coverage. One such source was Willamette Week, where an editor removed the coverage saying in their edit summary that the Willamette Week is not a reliable source. Sorry, but a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper meets my definition of WP:RS (now the editorial article also removed did not). As one of the top "malls" in the Portland metro area there are plenty of sources to use to demonstrate notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the biggest issue with that source wasn't reliability... it was the fact that it didn't actually say what it was supposed to be sourcing.--Isotope23 talk 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, but the edit summary then needs to say that, not" "rm Williamette Week - NOT a reliable source". However, note that the remover removed a large chunk of info that included the article I have re-added that did back the claim (about the shuttle bus service). So I think the editor in that case did actually consider the source not to be reliable (that or they screwed up). Aboutmovies (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the biggest issue with that source wasn't reliability... it was the fact that it didn't actually say what it was supposed to be sourcing.--Isotope23 talk 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, while it can certainly be sourced that the mall exists, there is no evidence that this mall is in any way notable. All sources were local news sources about completely non-notable events (shoplifting & a "Black Friday" midnight sale). Show me one mall in North America where that doesn't happen.--Isotope23 talk 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commet - keep your vote as is, but notability is the substantial coverage in reliable sources. That's it. A person doesn't have to be the oldest, a building doesn't have to be the biggest/tallest, a company doesn't have to meet a revenue minimum or being the largest in its market segment. Notablity is not fame, it is "worthy of note" as in it has been noted, specifically in WP:RS, see WP:NOTE and read the lead to that guideline. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, even with the references, I see absolutely nothing notable here. Sorry. It's less a question about reliability of sources than it is that none of this matters.--Isotope23 talk 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I guess you don't comprehend notability on Wikipedia, here's some help: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability." First part of the lead from WP:NOTE.
- Or: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2] First part of the first section.
- So unless you understand the Wikipedia guidelines, you really should not talk about Wikipedia notability, since Wikipedia notability really is not about your opinion. As the notability guideline makes abundantly clear, it is about the references. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I absolutely understand the notability guideline and I'm completely aware what it says... and that is just what it is a guideline. It wasn't brought down from the Mount on 2 stone tablets by Jimbo: "Thou Shalt not Delete an Article with Non-Trivial Coverage in Multiple, Reliable Sources, verily". We don't have to delete or keep anything just because it fits, or doesn't as the case may be, into this neat little mold of words that we've created. Something can meet the letter of a guideline and still fall completely short of the spirit and intent. I could find at least a half dozen non-trivial, 3rd party, reliable sources about the specific McDonald's location down the street from where I live; that doesn't mean we need an article about it. It's still not notable, even if it meets the letter of the guideline (though personally I think only "local" coverage demonstrates that this place has no notability outside its community)... and wikilawyering the text of that guideline selectively doesn't change that. I stand by my opinion above. That said, if it gets kept, the version that exists now is infinitely better than the previous versions that existed, so at least the content is improved.--Isotope23 talk 13:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Has your local McDonald's been mentioned on CNN.com or in the the AARP's travel magazine? I think both of those would be national in scope. However, notability is not national/international in scope. There is no requirement that everyone in the world needs to know about something to be notable. Further, local coverage for this mall would be the Woodburn newspaper or the Salem newspaper, The Oregonian is a large regional newspaper (top 30 circulation in the US) with a variety of Pultizer Prizes. And though this is orignal research, when I lived in Seattle many of my co-workers talked about the outlet and some even made semi-annual trips to shop there. No sales tax is a huge draw for people. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it has not been mentioned in those 2 specific publications, but it has been mentioned in at least 4 comparable national publications at various points in the past... If anything, it would exceed the "notability" of this particular place. I'd link the articles, but that would give away a bit more personal information about my whereabouts than I'd care to.--Isotope23 talk 19:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Has your local McDonald's been mentioned on CNN.com or in the the AARP's travel magazine? I think both of those would be national in scope. However, notability is not national/international in scope. There is no requirement that everyone in the world needs to know about something to be notable. Further, local coverage for this mall would be the Woodburn newspaper or the Salem newspaper, The Oregonian is a large regional newspaper (top 30 circulation in the US) with a variety of Pultizer Prizes. And though this is orignal research, when I lived in Seattle many of my co-workers talked about the outlet and some even made semi-annual trips to shop there. No sales tax is a huge draw for people. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I absolutely understand the notability guideline and I'm completely aware what it says... and that is just what it is a guideline. It wasn't brought down from the Mount on 2 stone tablets by Jimbo: "Thou Shalt not Delete an Article with Non-Trivial Coverage in Multiple, Reliable Sources, verily". We don't have to delete or keep anything just because it fits, or doesn't as the case may be, into this neat little mold of words that we've created. Something can meet the letter of a guideline and still fall completely short of the spirit and intent. I could find at least a half dozen non-trivial, 3rd party, reliable sources about the specific McDonald's location down the street from where I live; that doesn't mean we need an article about it. It's still not notable, even if it meets the letter of the guideline (though personally I think only "local" coverage demonstrates that this place has no notability outside its community)... and wikilawyering the text of that guideline selectively doesn't change that. I stand by my opinion above. That said, if it gets kept, the version that exists now is infinitely better than the previous versions that existed, so at least the content is improved.--Isotope23 talk 13:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, even with the references, I see absolutely nothing notable here. Sorry. It's less a question about reliability of sources than it is that none of this matters.--Isotope23 talk 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I guess - If any outlet mall in Oregon is notable, it's this one. Per its own promotional literature, it's the biggest such mall in the state (it's pretty big), and easily the most upscale. It's far bigger then several other (non-outlet) malls in Oregon which have articles categorized at Category:Shopping malls in Oregon. A garden-variety strip mall this ain't. OTOH, it isn't Mall of America either. Note that I am not terribly familiar with notability threshold for shopping centers, so am basing my opinion on what I know of other malls in the state which have articles (some of which, such as Cedar Hills Crossing, might also be AFD-fodder).--EngineerScotty (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Now that Aboutmovies has expanded the article with sources. As for local sources, I'm not sure where it says that local sources are not reliable, but the biggest statewide newspaper in the state (The Oregonian) and the biggest alternative newspaper in the state (Willamette Week) are used as reliable sources in hundreds of other articles. P.S. EngineerScotty, Cedar Hills Crossing survived an Afd with no consensus, though the closer didn't put the appropriate tag on the talk page... Katr67 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's appropriately referenced now, and its size and status as a destination trip (because of the fact of no local sales taxes and the most stores of
theirthat kind) does make it more than just a mall. Awotter (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. And I don't understand why this link can't stay [1]. Anti-consumer (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)— Anti-consumer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: it is suspected that Anti-consumer is a sock puppet of (currently blocked) She Who Photographs, who also kept attempting to add that forum link.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely Delete: no second-sourve notability, per WP:CORP. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article is now much better sourced than it was when it was nominated and I believe that enough notability has been shown, as much as is reasonably possible for a mall anyway. nancy (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep most of the above arguments no longer pertain. Since being brought to the attention of the folks at WikiProject:Oregon it has improved considerably. Cacophony 07:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete IF it can be shown that other malls its size generally do not have articles, and focus improving the quality of more pressing things. Otherwise I must say keep as it's a pretty big place and has already undergone an expansion/building of a second phase. Also, I do think its unusual for a mall to have its own transit service and think the part on the bus line should stay, especially if it failed and would become forgotten. Lastly, I think I remember it was in the news that their tree blew over last(?) year. Jason McHuff 11:16, 2 December 2007 (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.