Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McArthurGlen Group

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. Nomination was due to poor souring in article, and poor condition of article, combined with a sources search which turned up apparently inadequate sources. However, as pointed out (and evidenced by my own searches) there is a lot of coverage, including by the BBC - [1]. Sources date back to when company was formed in 1993. Four keeps, and no support for deletion. Sionk's provisional keep is based on there being a connection with the American parent - that is shown here: [2] SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McArthurGlen Group[edit]

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

This company has received a lot of coverage as shown by my searches here (News) and here (News Archive), Books, Newspapers Archive, thefreelibrary, Highbeam and Thefreelibrary but I'm not sure if it is notable. Thoughtful searches at BBC and Telegraph found nothing and I simply don't see any improvement to this currently unacceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Without looking at the article and just focusing on the sources, I see where you are having a problem. There is a ton of media but a lot of it is routine mentions, press releases, announcements, brief mentions, etc. However, there is some in-depth coverage [3] and I think its partnership with Simon Property Group [4] makes it pretty notable. As far as the article, I will do everyone a favor and strip out the junk. There are plenty of references out there for anyone looking to build it with reliable sources other than the company website.--TTTommy111 (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree the current article is woeful and needs a lot of improvement, but nevertheless the company is notable. It runs shopping centres across Europe and has an annual turnover in excess of a billion Euros. Neiltonks (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am sure the sources the nominator found are so-called significant coverage that speak to notability, as does The Drum citation in the article.[5] For example, Moodie Report and Kent Online would be enough to satisfy me, though I expect there is much more. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- rather annecdotally, McArthurGlen had a profile of sorts 20+ years ago (though maybe this was because they advertised on the TV a large Designer Outlet in my region). Assuming this 1993 article in the Washington Post is about the same company, this would indicate the Group has had significant coverage in major newspapers over a long period.

Of course, if the American company is something different, I'd change my !vote to "Weak delete". Unfortunately at the moment there is no information about the subject in the article and it is, in effect, a directory listing of (non-notable?) shopping malls. We should draw a distinction between the notability of the shopping malls (their products) and the notability of the controlling company. WP:NCORP requires evidence of significant coverage in general, non-specialist publications. At least it is good that the nominator has drawn these problems to a wider audience! Sionk (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2015 (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.