Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shops at Park Lane

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. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 02:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shops at Park Lane

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

Delete. WP is not a business directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. NOTDIRECTORY. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did either of you even look for sources? Not too much to go on, since it's a fairly new center, but I think it's enough to avoid deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make remarks about other AfD participants. But I agree with you - the sources do not add up to much (the center exists, that's about the sum of it). Local paper records the opening of typical local shopping center: doth not notability make. So I don't think it's enough to justify keeping the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMES dictates that shopping malls are notable more often than not — particularly if they are in the 750,000 square foot and higher range, which is "super regional" by International Council of Shopping Centers' rankings. I've added a further assertation of notability in that it contains a store new to the region, plus a flagship for a notable chain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not feeling the WP:NOTDIR nomination argument, even before TenPoundHammer made the article presentable. I don't see that the article is an attempt at spam and the CSD nomination was quite rightly rejected. In addition to the "keep" argument above, I'll say that whilst the sources may be local, that locality (Dallas–Fort Worth) has +6,000,000 inhabitants. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as size and sourcing appear to push this over the notability and verifiability thresholds. Article could stand expansion and improvement but that's a matter for clean-up, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 12:22, 21 February 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.