Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westwood Mall (Houston)

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 delete. The source analysis has not been adequately refuted, and WP:V places the onus on those seeking to retain content to show that it is appropriate. We do not hold AFDs open indefinitely pending the outcome of a potentially open-ended RFC. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westwood Mall (Houston)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An extinct mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, existing sources are sufficient for establishing notability. Nominator seems to have a preconception that "defunct" automatically means "non-notable", when oftentimes the reuse of a property into something other than its intended purpose is what makes the entity noteworthy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply and Question @TenPoundHammer:: Which of the sources show notability? I'm seeing a bunch of dead links, two almost identical stories that mention the mall in one sentence about being a filming location, and an article about Sears. Let me know which one you think establishes notability and I will look again.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Houston Business Journal, April 10, 2007			Dead link. No archive Fails WP:V	✘ No
www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/1998/11/02/newscolumn3.html"			Dead link. No archive Fails WP:V	✘ No
"Filming Begins on Television Movie 'Adam'", St. Petersburg Times,			There is no information about the mall. All the source says is "The Westwood Mall will be used to depict the Hollywood mall" Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD	✘ No
"Filming Starts on TV Movie About Abduction-Murder Of Adam Walsh"			All the article says is the Westwood Mall will be used to depict the Hollywood Fla. mall. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD	✘ No
Houston Chronicle, July 12, 1993			Dead link. No title. No archive found. Fails WP:V	✘ No
Houston Chronicle, September 2, 1993			Dead link. No title. No archive found. Fails WP:V	✘ No
http://www.seritage.com/retail/property/9570-southwest-freeway/3312637/landing	?	?	Dead link. No archive. From a property management website.	✘ No
Peterson, Hayley. "Sears is closing 20 more stores — here's the full list."			Article with a list of Sears stores which are closing. Westwood Mall is in the list but provides no details about the mall.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

None of the above sources establish notability.

re: "that "defunct" automatically means "non-notable", when oftentimes the reuse of a property into something other than its intended purpose is what makes the entity noteworthy" What are you referring to here? // Timothy :: talk 12:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the contents of the article and the sources in it. Contrary to the nominators opinion, Dead Links to not fail verifiability. A DL means the url has changed or the article is no longer available online. It doesn't mean the source must be discounted - sources do not have to be online in the first place. It may take a trip to the library or some other archive to find it. MB 23:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dead links cannot be used to establish notability. The sources added to the article are all routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. They do not establish notability. Every mall will have lots of routine coverage because they seek it out as advertising. If this type of coverage makes a mall notable, then every mall will be notable. // Timothy :: talk 02:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm here from the noticeboard thread, so if it's inappropriate for me to !vote the closer can disregard this. Most of the given sources look like the standard, unexceptional local coverage one would expect for any business, and the articles on the TV movie only briefly mention it. I can't find any guidelines indicating a building's use as a filming site automatically confers notability. JoelleJay (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources available, and the statement that dead links cannot be used to establish notability is completely false. Smartyllama (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer: since there is an RfC currently under discussion at AfD about what is considered proper sourcing for determining mall notabiity, it may be worth holding these open until that is finished. If a close is made, it would be very helpful for the RfC if you could explain how you evaluated the sources in terms of notability, routine, run of the mill coverage, and how you feel voting and !voting influenced this AfD. Thank you, // Timothy :: talk 09:15, 4 September 2020 (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.