Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawthorne Plaza Shopping Center

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Consensus is that the sources found by Calliopejen1 show the article should be retained and improved Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawthorne Plaza Shopping Center

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

Hawthorne Plaza Shopping Center (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)

The article does not meet

WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings.   // Timothy :: talk  03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a development that was significant to the city and attracted sustained coverage over time. According to the LA Times (1990), the plaza contributed 15% of Hawthorne's sales tax revenue. Significant coverage includes:
Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the article contains additional reliable sources that I think have been unfairly characterized by the nominator. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per coverage above and already in article, sourcing is more than sufficient. Also further asserted in use of the former building in several movie and TV shows. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above are all routine news coverage that any mall would receive; it does not demonstrate notability.
    WP:NBUILD says that ""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." Nothing above touches on historic, social, or architectural importance (and significant coverage means addressing the subject directly and in depth). Economic significance is refuted by the fact that it is a dead mall. If someone disagrees, please state which sources show historic, social, economic, or architectural importance.   // Timothy :: talk  03:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @TimothyBlue: You really don't think that "used in a ton of movies and TV shows" is "historical or social importance", nor the fact that a structure in a major city has been sitting abandoned for 21 years? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: No I don't. Being a movie set for several movies is not historic (especially in Los Angeles) and what social importance does being a movie set for a few days have? What social impact did being a movie set have? Being an abandoned property for 21 years is not notable, if anything it shows how unnotable the mall is.   // Timothy :: talk  04:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Don't be sarcastic, I gave you an honest reply. Guidelines are not just random arbitrary statements, there is a purpose to them. I see this as wheat and chaff. If we have 2000 articles for American malls (don't know the actual number), but only 200 are genuinely noteworthy, the 200 (10%) will be obscured by the other 1800 (90%). Removing non-notable malls, helps the visibility of notable ones. If all readers see when they look at malls, is open, renovate, close, boring routine items, they will miss the truly interesting and noteworthy malls. I believe this is what
    WP:NBUILD
    is going for when it says "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance".
  • Is there some historical importance, such as the malls that were the first of their kind? I'm thinking here of the same way department stores are viewed, every department store is not notable, but the first department stores were pioneers, those have a history that is interesting and notable.
  • Social, a small/average mall in an urban area not socially notable, it's just one among a vast array of social environments. But a mall in a small town may be the center of the community and a significant part of the social fabric, not duplicated in other places.
  • Architectural speaks for itself, there are lots of architectural journals and magazines and if they cover a mall because of its design, then I see that as an indication something about the mall is notable and this can be in the article.
  • Economic, I'd go to the social reason above. A mall in a large urban area is going to make a negligible impact on the economy, even if it makes good money. But a mall in a small town may be a significant part of the local economy, even if it makes a fraction of the money the mall in an urban area does. In the same way as a factory in a city with a huge manufacturing base like Los Angeles or New York wouldn't be notable, but if you move that same factory to a small town, it could be the lifeblood of the economy, if it closed the town would (and sadly have) dry up.
  // Timothy :: talk  04:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*"Historical": "every department store is not notable, but the first department stores were pioneers." So by that logic, Bon Marche in Paris is notable because it was a first, whereas Kohl's, Burlington, and J.C. Penney aren't notable at all because they weren't the first of anything nor did they pioneer anything.
"separating the wheat from the chaff.... helps the visibility of notable ones." That's like saying that a musician who never entered the Hot 100 (for example
WP:GA) should be deleted so that an article on, say, Maroon 5 or Metallica
can have its visibility helped, whatever that means. Because by your standards, the Forester Sisters were just a "routine" band who routinely got together, routinely released singles and albums, routinely got reviews from routine music reviewers, and routinely broke up like most other bands do.
"it's just one among a vast array of social environment". So by your logic, Northland Center is notable because it was one of the first and a "pioneer", whereas literally every other mall in Metro Detroit is "just one among a vast array" and therefore not notable. Not even the one that had the very first American Eagle Outfitters in it, huh? Because it's in a mall that's "just one among a vast array" by not being notable in any other fashion.
"Architectural speaks for itself". Not every structure has to be architecturally notable. Again, I guess that means that Forest Fair Village is just another run-of-the-mill, routine mall that routinely got built and routinely died because it didn't have anything significant from a structural standpoint.
" A mall in a large urban area is going to make a negligible impact on the economy, even if it makes good money." How much is non negligible by your standards? Is Colonial Plaza no longer notable because it got torn down? Rolling Acres Mall is not notable because it didn't make enough money and failed?
If you contrast
WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Reply First, these are not my standards. I am discussing it from the guidelines.
The
WP:NBUILD is not an all of the above requirement. Le Bon Marché
may (I haven't looked) have importance architecturally or historically. JC Penny may be notable due to social or historic reasons, even though it is failing economically and their store (as far as I know) have no architectural importance. This will be reflected in the sources.
If something is important architecturally it will be covered by architectural journals and magazines, or by articles from historical preservation societies. The same is true about economics; if something is economically significant it will be reflected in the sources. I don't have a standard,
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
.
When you attempt to get personal with comments such the ones above, you're only showing emotion that betrays the weakness of your reasoning and evidence.   // Timothy :: talk  05:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources that Calliopejen1 presented above show that there is pretty significant coverage for this topic. I disagree with the nominator that "If all readers see when they look at malls, is open, renovate, close, boring routine items, they will miss the truly interesting and noteworthy malls." Notability is not assessed in relation to other subjects, and openings, renovations, and closures are not necessarily "routine". These sources show that there's some pretty specific coverage of this mall in third-party reliable sources, which is enough to meet
    WP:NBUILD, "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." The requirement is that such buildings need significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. Historical, social, economic, or architectural significance is an ancillary, and will be demonstrated by whether the topic meets the GNG. epicgenius (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Reply: None of the sources provides any evidence of mall meeting
    WP:NBUILD
    . It's all routine coverage or promo pieces. You could find articles like these for every single mall. These sources show that this was just an average mall; a number of people have looked and none have come up with a single source that shows this mall has historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. It was so completely average that even when some people tried to revive it, the plans failed.
Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
"Hawthorne Plaza". The Daily Breeze. Yes Yes No Dead Link ✘ No
Construction Under Way at Hawthorne Plaza Site". Los Angeles Times. Yes Yes No Dead link ✘ No
Jeff Arellano (October 2, 2005). "Hawthorne Mall: Hawthorne California". Yes Yes No It's a simple blog entry on a site about Dead Malls. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
 ✘ No
Williams, J (30 June 2014). "Watch: Exploring the Spooky Abandoned Hawthorne Mall". Yes Yes No One paragraph promo about "Tom goes inside the abandoned Hawthorne Plaza mall" Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
 ✘ No
Hernandez, Miriam (19 November 2014). "Hawthorne staging comeback with outlet mall". KABC-TV. Yes Yes No Short routine coverage about a possible plan to become an outlet mall. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
 ✘ No
Mazza, Sandy (18 February 2016). "Ambitious new plans emerge for abandoned Hawthorne Plaza mall". Daily Breeze Yes Yes No Dead link ✘ No
"Hawthorne Happenings March 10, 2016". City of Hawthorne. 10 March 2016. No Financial interest in tax revenue No It's a city community events calendar page No It says nothing about the mall ✘ No
azza, Sandy (12 February 2018). "Makeover of decrepit Hawthorne Plaza Mall canceled again". The Daily Breeze. Yes Yes No Dead link ✘ 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}}.
Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
Kowsky, Kim. "YOU ARE HERE Reaching Out to an Ethnically Mixed Clientele: [South Bay Edition]." Los Angeles Times Yes Yes No Routine coverage any mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
 ✘ No
Gnerre, Sam. "SOUTH BAY HISTORY: Hawthorne Plaza." Daily Breeze Yes Yes No Routine coverage any mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
 ✘ No
Sandell, Scott. "Hawthorne Plaza Shops Around for a Way to Survive Slump Retail...Los Angeles Times Yes Yes No Routine coverage any mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
 ✘ No
Glover, Kara and Anne Rackham. "Hawthorne Mall Faces an Uncertain Future." Los Angeles Business Yes Yes No Routine coverage any mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
 ✘ No
Mazza, Sandy. "Hawthorne Mall Stalls Over Housing." Daily Breeze, Oct 10, 2010. Yes Yes No Is not about the mall. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
 ✘ No
"Shopper's Paradise each Center Tries to Carve its Niche with Own Personality: [South Bay Edition]." Los Angeles Times Yes Yes No Short promo piece. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
 ✘ No
Mazza, Sandy. "Mall Makeover Mired in Debate." Daily Breeze, Jun 22, 2008 Yes Yes No Is not about the mall. Its about a stalled plan to possibly make over the mall. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
 ✘ 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}}.
There is nothing here that shows this former mall meets
WP:NBUILD.   // Timothy :: talk  11:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep per sources in the article and above. MB 23:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sources above and in 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  02:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then let it? Notability has been established for "run of the mill" plazas on here because of having reliable sources (newspapers) and verifiability. Anchor stores are usually the long term leasees of the property. Depending on the anchor store, they might have also bought the overall land. That information usually suffices
    WP:GNG. – The Grid (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I got curious for possible sources:
Some of the sources accessed can be removed but note
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I vote keep on the sources that can be obtained. – The Grid (talk) 12:50, 1 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  09:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    WP:AN that that's not a reason to keep the AFD open longer. Let these discussions run their course. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That was the opinion of a single individual, not a consensus. At ANI the consensus in the close was stated, "You and others suggested, reasonably, that some the guidelines for malls should be developed and clarified, and in fact constructive discussion about a potential WP:SNG is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC on shopping malls and notability guidelines.". Let the closer have all of the information and they can decide. There is no hurry to close these only to have them reopened at DR as a result of the RfC.   // Timothy :: talk  20:31, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hawthorne_Plaza_Shopping_Center&oldid=977213311"