Talk:Valley View Center

Stores list

I've marked the stores list with the NPOV tag, which may seem like a somewhat unorthodox move, but here's my rationale: What constitutes a "major" store? Anchor stores can be fairly easily determined based on names. If I were to guess, I'd say that the anchors are probably Dillard's, Penney's, Macy's, and Sears. Anchor stores are fairly easily to define, and should be sectioned off on their own. The definition of "major" troubles me somewhat. What is the objective criteria here for defining a store as "major"? It seems that there is none. Is it based on square footage? Sales? Customer traffic? Who knows. We need to determine "major" in this case. Besides that, the "major" section is bifurcated, as there are two sections for "major" retailers. So let's rectify this... SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I Agree with Schuminweb

Perhaps the word to use is not "major". I think the wording should be "flagship". However, you should only use the word "Flagship" if the company considers it a flagship store. Please don't be mad at me but I'm going to re-edit the page to maje or look like a NPOV stand. Mystify85JEC 19:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes ahead

Some major changes, perhaps long overdue, to the operation of Valley View Center appear to be about to get underway. Here's a link to an article that spells out part of what could be the beginning of the end. (Yes, that's a lot of weasel but I'll err on the side of caution here.) - Dravecky (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Wilonsky, Robert (July 1, 2011). "So, They're Chopping Up Valley View ..." Unfair Park. Dallas Observer. Retrieved July 4, 2011. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dallas Midtown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427080555/http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Developing-plans-at-Valley-View-Mall-location-to-be-revealed-today-148657265.html to http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Developing-plans-at-Valley-View-Mall-location-to-be-revealed-today-148657265.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The “In Popular Culture” section should stay.

As one user has said, far less notable things have been included on Wikipedia.

I fail to see how a video that is rapidly gaining over 100,000 views a day (897,000 since its release 4 days ago) is “non notable”. I would argue that that is a rather significant moment for a dead and demolished mall that hardly anyone would have given any thought about if not for the video. Not0nshoree (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Not0nshoree: The YouTube video added to the "in popular culture" section appears to be a low-quality video filmed by someone trespassing in the abandoned mall. I would support adding this video as an external link, if not for the extremely low-quality filming technique, which makes it unencyclopedic. Moreover, there is nothing to support that this low-quality video has had any cultural impact, per WP:IPC. It should be removed. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The video is actually of a 3d render of the Mall: it's entirely computer generated and tells a fictional story. I guess you only watched a little bit of it, but it's a fictional found footage horror movie set in the Valley View Centre, not a video of the real mall. The creator, Kane Parsons, has said he worked 16 hour days to complete the film, and he is mentioned on another wiki page regarding his notable computer rendered horror films (he is currently producing a film with A24 in the same style as well). Although I wouldn't say it should be added until the video receives attention beyond YouTube, it's certainly not irrelevant or low quality. AlisterSinclair (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The footage is not real, if that is what you are implying. It was made to look like low-quality phone-held video. The video is part of a fictional YouTube series. Not0nshoree (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Take the time to view the video in its entity and understand the plot. The film depicts the mall as it was prior to closure (albeit as a high clarity digital recreation) as featured in several prominent media outlets, including The Dallas Morning News. As others have pointed out, the director of this video (Kane Parsons) is himself notable, and has been featured several times including ABC News (US) and has his own IMDB profile. The video itself is arguably of high quality, and what one would expect from a high-definition handheld camera (one's personal opinion on what constitutes "quality" is frankly irrelevant here anyway; The perceived video quality doesn't change what the film depicts). Rightfully so, the "In popular culture" section should remain and indeed be expanded on. 2404:E80:4FA7:16:61AD:D05C:6782:FBA0 (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll also add that the fact that this film has brought significant attention to Valley View Centre, from people outside of the USA (for what was otherwise a rather unknown mall), goes towards demonstrating its increasing notoriety. 2404:E80:4FA7:16:61AD:D05C:6782:FBA0 (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"...appears to be a low-quality video filmed by someone trespassing in the abandoned mall." LOL Artificial Silence (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Do sources on the topic of this article—Valley View Center—cover this aspect? If they do not, this is fundamentally a non-starter per WP:MINORASPECT. TompaDompa (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. Although I would support adding for reasons of popular culture (the film has undoubtedly drawn attention to the mall among the public that it would not have otherwise recieved) it needs sources other than the youtube video, and as far as I can tell it has not received any as for now. If/when it does I think it would be a reasonable addition to the page, but the single sentence currently on the article is all that is necessary. This is a page about a mall, not about youtube horror trivia AlisterSinclair (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a sensible outcome. A single line or two about the notable video is all that is needed at this point. 87.121.249.119 (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a rough consensus that a reliable, secondary source is necessary. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. If there was a secondary source about the YouTube video (such as a news article on it), then this content would stay. But since all that's being cited is the video itself, then it fails WP:NOR. Panian513 14:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Based on this talk page, I wouldn't say there was "consensus" on this at all. I'd suggest that the primary source satisfies the purpose of the "In Popular Culture" section, as it currently stands. 2404:E80:4FA7:16:395B:FC19:E2B0:4CA9 (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see and consensus whatsoever. I agree with the IP, the primary source is good enough. Daveman115 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, lots of things are filmed, it does not make them "pop culture", seems to me to violate wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Those unsourced/poorly-sourced/indiscriminate "in popular culture" sections used to be popular, but the project has mostly moved on. Anything mentioned should really be supported by reliable, secondary sources. (That excludes WP:RSPTVTROPES.) Woodroar (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The primary source is not enough, current consensus requires that secondary sources must be used to support anything in a "In Popular Culture" section. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content and the 2015 RFC on the matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Note both wp:brd and WP:ONUS is clear, to add this you need wp:consensus we do not need it to exclude it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus that most people are FOR this section. There seems to be a select few who are against it. 2404:E80:4FA7:16:483C:A0E9:A7A9:5212 (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. Disputes are largely resolved by following or referencing our policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I have asked for PP to stop the slow edit war over this. Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

LAT about The Oldest View.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2023-10-26/best-new-horror-movies-streaming-halloween-2023

"The most-talked-about new horror film of the season isn’t in theaters or on a streamer, but on YouTube. Which is why you should turn off the lights and get lost in the viral CG nightmare “The Oldest View,” the latest cinematic brain-melter from 18-year-old prodigy Kane Parsons." 2001:9E8:2D02:900:9408:AD3A:BF7B:3BD0 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that’s a good secondary source to include in the article. Increases notability. Not0nshoree (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The LA Times article doesn't even mention Valley View Center (the topic of this article) so it would be of no use as a source. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Film Theory about The Oldest View

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSNKesrUC_8

This video by YouTube channel The Film Theorists (12.8M subscribers) offers a critique and interpretation of The Oldest View. At the time of this writing, this analysis video was viewed 2.2M times. It mentions the Valley View Center at length.

"it's important to note that the Valley View Center doesn't actually exist anymore (...) by 2012 the mall was bought out by an investment group called Beck Ventures who didn't plan to save the dying mall but instead demolish it and rebuild the land into a completely different shopping district known as Dallas Midtown. In fact you can see part of Beck's plan to do this inside of The Oldest View as Wyatt is exploring the office space you can spot several artistic renderings and publicity images displayed on one of the walls that he walks by the very same ones that you can find in real life if you go to the actual website for the Dallas Midtown project"

Would a separate video by a reputable channel be admissible as a secondary source? This seems possible if the channel is reputable according to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links#As_references --2A02:8109:9D98:A400:B09D:9C0B:AE47:C019 (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The video appears to have little relevance to this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we are talking about the same video. The video by The Film Theorists[1] linked above mentions the Valley View Center by name 5 times and a significant amount of the runtime is dedicated to the history of the Mall. If it is acceptable as a secondary source, it would increase notability for The Oldest View. 89.204.135.143 (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The Film Theorists is an entertainment channel, like all of MatPat's Theorists channels. I've never seen it taken seriously as a source on or off Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

That is fair, though I believe there is some nuance to it in this particular case. Based on the above exchanges, it seems the discussion is hinging on the following questions:

1. Notability: is Kane Parson's series The Oldest View culturally significant?

2. Significant Coverage WP:SIGCOV: Does Kane Parson's series The Oldest View have a strong enough thematic connection to the Valley View Center?

3. Reliable sources WP:SOURCES Do the citations come from reputable sources?

On 1 and 3: There seemed to be an agreement that LAT article calling The Oldest View "The most-talked-about new horror film of the season" was enough to establish notability and comes from a reputable source. However it was considered insufficient to establish 2 for not explicitly mentioning the Valley View Center mall.

On 2: The show is set almost entirely in a hyper-realistic CGI reconstruction of the Valley View Center mall and its plot is largely inspired by the history of the location. The video from The Film Theorists makes it pretty clear in case the show itself didn't already. Is a high level of reputability really needed here?

Could we agree that the combination of these two sources, one reputable establishing the show's overall notability and the other—arguably less reputable—confirming its rather self evident thematic connection to the Valley View Center, should suffice??

I understand there is some reluctance to include "In Popular Culture" sections which can get out of control but it seems rather unlikely that this would happen here.

A good analog would be the page for the Monroeville Mall[2] which mentions Night of The Living Dead, a horror film set in that location. 2A02:3032:416:D2F1:20A7:533D:3176:2558 (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Not really. WP:N (our Notability policy) and WP:SIGCOV (its "significant coverage" subsection) are about whether or not a subject is considered important ("notable") enough to warrant its own standalone article. So they're not applicable here. The relevant policies covering what belongs in an article are (mostly) WP:V (all claims should be directly supported by a reliable source or sources) and the related WP:NOR (articles shouldn't include claims based on original research, where no reliable sources exist). There's also WP:NOT, which goes into why Wikipedia doesn't include certain kinds of information or detail; one of those is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think the essay "In popular culture" content does a good job of tying all of them together.

But to answer your question, we're not able to combine multiple sources to support a claim that none of them make. We call that synthesis on Wikipedia. All claims need to be directly and explicitly supported by a reliable source. So yes, the Los Angeles Times is generally considered a reliable source, but it doesn't mention Valley View Center so we can't consider it. (As an aside, I'll also mention that there's been a great deal of pushback against those listicle-type articles over the past decade or so. They're seen as something that a lot of media companies have had to do to pay the bills, along with clickbait headlines, unmarked churnalism, and pumping out low-quality content like a content farm—but we typically ignore them as sources. If a reliable source considers something noteworthy, they'll probably devote a dozen or so paragraphs to it. That is what we're looking for.) And, as MatPat isn't considered a reliable source, we have to exclude that source entirely. (Another aside: I'm not a subscriber to MatPat's channels but I've watched plenty of their videos over the years. It's all interesting stuff, but they're not the subject-matter experts that we look for. You can read about our reliable sources guideline at WP:RS.)

The comparison to Monroeville Mall and Dawn of the Dead is a fair one. The Night of the Living Dead series was widely influential on pop culture, and dozens of books have been written about how they were made. (You can see some of them in a Google Books search.) There are also plenty of online sources connecting Dawn of the Dead to the Monroeville Mall, like CBS News, Times Online, Rue Morgue, and Bloody Disgusting. These are the types of sources we're looking for with The Oldest View and Valley View Center. Hopefully they'll get written as Kane Pixels gets more noteworthy, but we're unfortunately not there yet. Woodroar (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

93.1 KISS-FM about The Oldest View

An article was published by KSII talking about this mall and its relationship with The Oldest View. https://kisselpaso.com/the-backrooms-and-beyond-exploring-creepy-urban-exploration-trends-with-kane-pixels/ Lugamo94 (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I really don't think we could call this reliable. It's a local(ish) radio station, the author ("Grizz") doesn't seem to be a recognized subject matter expert, and there's no apparent editorial structure. The piece itself is rather amateurish, mostly summarizes what's in the videos (meaning there's little actual content in his own words), and I spotted quite a few mistakes and typos (which speaks to their lack of editorial control). Woodroar (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems rather strange...

It seems odd to me that I've seen so many analyses about The Oldest View mention the Valley View Mall and yet when I come to Wikipedia, the vaunted repository of knowledge, the only mention I see of The Oldest View on here is in the discussion section. Now, I don't know if this is some issue with where in the structure of the article it might go, if some of the detractors of adding it have gotten a little backed into their positions, or if it is perhaps some issue of site policy; but to me it seems entirely clear that The Oldest View is more than worthy of mentioning in the article. It seems that it's the most probable reason why someone from outside of the DFW Metroplex would be on this page at all.

I could be wrong, of course, but if I am then I fail to see the evidence. George Mucus (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

If you read the discussions above, you'll see that it's entirely due to the lack of coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources—which is what all Wikipedia articles should be based on. At least one reliable source (The Los Angeles Times) does cover The Oldest View, but it says nothing about the Valley View Mall. Other sources do connect the video with the mall, but they're not reliable. If you know of sources not mentioned above, please let us know so we can research them. Woodroar (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Is the creator of the mall assets listing the assets for sale count as reputable or social media? I'm relatively certain this is the source of the mall assets Kane Pixels used. https://blendermarket.com/products/mall-from-the-oldest-view-backrooms-project-files-assets-shops-shopping-center

If that doesn't meet the guidelines, I must unfortunately note that everything else I've found is on Reddit and YouTube. While these sources contain original research, it's all extremely well supported, beyond all shadow of a doubt. Surely the number and quality of these posts should merit some sort of notability, I think. George Mucus (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The source is an unreliable user generated advertisement; Draft:Kane Pixels and Draft:The Oldest View are not notable; and Wikipedia is not a collection of MOS:TRIVIA. Please also see WP:VNOT and WP:ENN. --Magnolia677 (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)