Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7282 East Point Douglas Road South

7282 East Point Douglas Road South[edit]

7282 East Point Douglas Road South (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)

Article about a empty former K-mart store in a small town, which consists only of an infobox and an extra photo and contains no content or sourcing to suggest why the building would warrant a Wikipedia article about it. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of every single building that exists in every single city on earth — a building can qualify for an article on here if you can write something substantive and sourced about what makes it important or historic or some other claim that makes it special somehow, but "former K-mart location in a small town" is not, in and of itself, a claim of that type. I'd actually have speedied this if there were any speedy criterion at all that I could have squeezed it into — but it's still an unequivocal delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as utterly lacking any notability. I could not find any reliable sources that discuss this address, or businesses located at this address. I have always argued that speedy deletion per WP:A3 should apply to articles that only consist of an infobox, but the text of that criterion explicitly states that it does not apply to articles with infoboxes. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow-up comment: Many thanks to North America for the heads up about the page move. After searching for articles about the Gateway North shopping center, I found a number of articles from a local paper that mention this shopping center (see this article, this article, this article, this article, and this article from the South Washington County Bulletin). On the one hand, WP:LOCALFAME states that if a subject is "completely unknown outside a given locality [that] does not mean the subject is not notable". On the other hand, the articles I found are about the individual businesses in the shopping center, rather than the shopping center itself, its history, its significance to the region, etc. (see WP:TRIVIALMENTION). Unless someone can show me articles that talk about the shopping center itself, I am going to keep my vote as delete. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The page was moved (by another user) to Gateway North. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think this is distructive to rule based of one your opinion of relivance. If someone from Europe decided the Willis Tower wasn't relivant and marked it for deletion it would be bad. Wikipedia is meant for people to create articles based off of locations. Gateway North is one of the biggest strip malls in the city. I urge you to vote Keep because we can't let opinion of outsiders change Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxNewsChannelFan (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FoxNewsChannelFan, do you have sources that talk about the mall, its history, or its significance to the region? If not, then unfortunately this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (see WP:GNG). In order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article, significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required (see WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here is the link http://www.cottage-grove.org/images/eda/icsc/gateway-buildings.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxNewsChannelFan (talk • contribs) 04:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• FoxNewsChannelFan, that's certainly a start, though the source appears to be published by a real estate broker selling retail space at the mall, so that might present issues with partiality (see the discussion about sources written by vendors at WP:RELIABLE). Do you have other sources that talk about the mall? Keep in mind that WP:GNG requires coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" (emphasis mine). Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about identifying reliable sources. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notecardforfree, This article is done by the City of Cottage Grove so I argue that it's important to the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxNewsChannelFan (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• FoxNewsChannelFan, I'm sure it is very important to the local community, but Wikipedia's notability guideline requires that articles receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." However, even if this mall does not merit its own article according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, you can still add information about the mall to the article for Cottage Grove, Minnesota (provided that the information is verifiable) because notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Also, FYI, you should sign your comments by placing tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Notecardforfree, see WP:LOCALFAME it states that even if it's not notable to the state of the world it's still notable to the community.FoxNewsChannelFan (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)FoxNewsChannelFan[reply]

• FoxNewsChannelFan, the mall still needs to pass WP:GNG to merit its own article. WP:LOCALFAME clarifies that "[e]verything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered original research." I'm certainly willing to change my mind if you can show me that the mall has received significant coverage in sources that discuss the mall directly and in detail, but absent such coverage, it doesn't look like this subject passes WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Local fame does not confer an exemption from having to reliably source the article to media coverage that satisfies WP:GNG — you still have to properly source that the thing has as much local fame as you claim it has. It's always possible to claim local notability for every single building that exists at all (and every single person that exists at all, and every single group or organization that exists at all, and on and so forth) — so we rely on reliable source coverage, not mere assertions of local notability that could just be overinflated public relations hype. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2016 (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.