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 no consensus. W.marsh 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wausau Center[edit]

Non-notable mall. Has remained almost entirely the same since creation, fails WP:N and WP:RS.

I am also nominating the redirect:

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The shopping center is not notable. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most mall articles on here aren't really notable either, but I haven't seen them tagged for deletion. Maybe this article could be improved a bit?--jonrev 22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is rarely a good argument. I've tried to improve this article, but there's nothing more to be said about it than "it's a mall in downtown Wausau, Wisconsin and it has these anchors". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wausau, Wisconsin, while not enough for an individual article, it is worth mentionning for this city as it is an important mall for the area.--JForget 00:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wausau, Wisconsin. I looked at this article in the past, once, too, and was unable to find much more of interest than what is already here. A redirect to Wausau, Wisconsin#Wausau Center might be reasonable, and it would be a shame to lose the photo here (which is a photo of Wausau, after all) simply because this article is deleted. If someday significantly more info comes forth, it could be re-spun to its own article. Skybunny 15:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It is a regional mall with 429,970 square feet of gross leasable area. I found humdrum coverage of the mall and of events at the mall, but most papers demand payments to see the full article. A typical article from 1993 says that " Wausau Center, an enclosed downtown mall, has at least 60 stores." A St. Paul MN paper from 1989 chronicles the mall as a center of dispute over costs to the city vs economic benefits to the county. The AP wire mentioned it was for sale in 1999 [1]. It seems to be somewhat notable because of crime, if nothing else. Someone beat up the Easter Bunny at the mall [2] and this story was picked up by Fox News.Robbers in 1993 stole the Salvation Army red kettle [3]. In 1993 the police called it a gang hangout [4]. The mall outlawed bandanas in 2001 to discourage gangs. The mall tried to use classical music to drive off the gang members [5] "MALL HOPES CLASSICAL MUSIC WILL DRIVE OFF RUDE TEEN-AGERS," St. Paul Pioneer Press - NewsBank - Jun 16, 1993. So it sounds like a better-sourced than average mall article could be written. This does not say it has any special historic or architectural importance, or commercial importance beyond other regional malls, which have had a mixed record with respect to being kept in AFDs. Edison 18:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good job, Edison. Please add them to the article. I'm usually skeptical of mall articles, but if they all had this kind of sourcing it would be another matter. Controversies over relations with the community are encyclopedia-worthy content. DGG (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aren't stories like the Salvation Army kettle being stolen or the Easter Bunny being beaten up incidents that aren't necessarily notable to the mall at all? You can see how if you actually have a sentence in this article that says 'In 1993, robbers stole a Salvation Army red kettle' isn't really...notable even within the context of a theoretical mall article itself. Crime happens in malls. Gang problems are probably not terribly unique to Wausau Center, but more a problem in large malls in general, depending on the locale.

(above...) This does not say it has any special historic or architectural importance, or commercial importance beyond other regional malls... ...this is why I believe a merge is the right thing to do, lacking more. For an example of a regional mall that seems to survive AFD criteria, have a look at Valley Fair Shopping Center, which is being torn down as this is written, and yet probably has more than enough to survive deletion. I'm still not convinced Wausau Center does. It needs more meat, like history, ownership, quotable public lauding or criticism of the complex...famous firsts...something. I would much prefer to see references to the 'possible sale' and the 'costs to the city versus benefits' here, than 'someone stole the red kettle'. If there were several of those, which can put together a mall history, I would be more inclined to support keeping this article. Skybunny 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the sources we are readily able to access (even in snip view, without paying some newspaper $3 to see a story) tend to cover "news" rather than substantial analysis of "history, ownership, quotable public lauding or criticism of the complex...famous firsts" which are apt to be found in ICSC publications ($$subscription), and in industry publications ($$subscription), that are harder to find or to read. It seems unlikely that a multibillion dollar industry does not analyze its own substance, with discussions of successful and unsuccessful malls, good and poor siting choices, good or poor management, successful and unsuccessful renovations, and special problems such as the hints of a crime problem found for this one (I think my town's gangs would eat alive the bandanna wearing, bunny bopping, kettle stealing classical music haters which seem to be the bane of Wausau Center, yet we have successful malls nearby with no such problems). It is really an issue for the Mall Project to get volunteers with academic library access or access to industry subscription publications to beef up these articles and to separate the wheat from the chaff. Edison 16:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to see any reason for notability in the article. It is a run of the mill mall. Vegaswikian 02:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being non notable. No sources are given and those so far found are rather trivial news stories, the majority of which the mall plays no part other than being a location. Nuttah68 09:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can come up with some sort of assertion of notability. Is it significantly different than average mall? Is "429,970 square feet" which "displaced eight city blocks" significantly larger than the thousands of other malls across the nation? Or was it built on an Indian Burial Ground and named after the tribe or the famous "Chief Wausau"? Or perhaps was it built on a swamp that was a former battle ground in the French Canadian Wars where many valiant soldiers of the Wausau Battalion perished? Or perhaps is it on the site of Fort Wausau which was the first fort in the northern plains? Or, shifting gears, is the mall perhaps the host of the largest number of crafts kiosks, and underwrites the nation's largest crafts and antiques show? These are the sort of things I think would be indicative of notability for a shopping center, providing a wonderful supply of primary and secondary sources, as required for notability for organizations and such. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing anything yet that can be defended on the firm grounds of notability. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some good thoughts there on what couod make a mall notable. Being built on a historic site would not qualify something for its own article. If a mall were on the site of the an historic battle or notable cemetary that would rate a sentence in the article on the battle or cemetary, unless the mall was otherwise notable, or unless the questionable use of the historic site got lots of press coverage. There are a non-notable strip mall, a non-notable police station, and a non-notable campus of a notable college built on the site of a notable defunct amusement park called Riverview Park.Edison 15:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Thanks - but my (attempted) point was not so much that if the mall might have been built on a historic site, then that in and of itself would have made it notable per se, but that this sort of historical cross-reference would be presumably well documented with secondary sources, which would improve notability; and even more so it could be boosted on the notability scale if the mall was actually named after a historically significant and notable person, place, event, etc. It is sort of like the old notability guidelines for WP:SCHOOL, which I still refer to from time to time when trying to decide if the new Jones Elementary School in Tippewajaraville, Mississippi is notable enough to keep. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Wausau, Wisconsin. I don't see anything about this that makes it notable beyond being a local mall. The news coverage listed in one of the comments isn't so much about the mall as it is about events that happen to occur at the mall. JCO312 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not know what is notable.Harlowraman 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A second vote would be Weak Merge to Wausau, Wisconsin. The Mall is not too notable. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 22:02, 22 August 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.