Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherwood Park Mall

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherwood Park Mall[edit]

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

Notability not demonstrated; sounds just one of thousands of similar commercial shopping centers in North America. Wkharrisjr (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its not a commercial strip like "thousands" of others, quick research shows that its a significant sized enclosed mall. It was also called "eastgate" when constructed, so sources might also exist under that title.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sherwood Park, Alberta. Much of the information in the article may be a violation of WP:NOT, such as the size (relatively, other malls are built and demolished frequently; also malls frequently build, add on to or knock down portions of buildings) and stores (change frequently and without rhyme or reason). No comment on the GNG question p b p 19:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a regional mall with 464,000 sq ft of space, four anchors, and nearly 100 stores. Needs better sourcing but is of a size to be generally notable as a shopping mall. - Dravecky (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Not a strip mall as evidenced in the floor plan. Not an especially large mall, but certainly not a run-of-the-mill strip mall. A mall this size represents a sizable commercial hub in a community, and should pass WP:GNG. Addendum Downgrading to "weak". Sadly this proposal was rejected. The talk page for that proposed policy includes some precedent cases. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's do a search for sourcing:
- There's a large amount of trivial coverage -- things like the mall's opening, a burglary at one of its stores, etc. But this must be discounted under WP:CORPDEPTH. This is also covered by media of regional scope, not national or international. Here's an example. And another about an arm wrestling competition held there.
- A search under "Eastgate Mall" (its former name) reveals more similar coverage, like this. There's nothing here about the mall's founding, but there is some routine coverage of its expansion in the early 1980s.
- There's some other similar coverage in Google Books. Here's a description of a theater that was installed at the mall. Here's something about activities at the mall. There's some discussion in this autobiography, but I'd suggest that's a primary source and doesn't do much to support notability.
- Nothing significant comes up in a web search.
There has been some coverage over the years, but none of it goes beyond trivial and routine, and none of it is national or international in scope. On that basis, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG barring new evidence of substantial coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously no one has searched the archives of the Edmonton Journal or Toronto Star. Our fair Canadian cities get short shrift in these notability battles because their freely accessible online archives pale in comparison with the United States. I just want to note this in case it gets deleted in the chance it inspires someone to do old style honest research.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you're coming from here. Many of the results in a news search were from the Edmonton Journal and Edmonton Sun, but none of them went beyond routine coverage of events at the mall, hirings of executives and so forth. --Batard0 (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the very first source I cite above is from the archives of the Edmonton Journal. --Batard0 (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The google news coverage of Edmonton Journal is very sporadic. E.g., only 38 issues for 1972, 21 issues for 1984, etc., it doesn't allow for more than happenstance research of that publication.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you or somebody else can show that there's been significant coverage that we can't access online, I'll change my stance to keep. I'm just not convinced by what we can see that there's anything that demonstrates significant coverage. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There could be other databases. Is the newspaper regional or province-wide in scope? I only ask because WP:CORPDEPTH says "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." --Batard0 (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that we don't even have to see the sources themselves necessarily -- we just need to know that they actually exist to an extent that we're satisfied there's significant coverage. Hard to say how to do this, but the threshold is fairly low, as long as it is indeed significant coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2012 (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.