Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NorthPark Mall (Oklahoma) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. L Faraone  05:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

NorthPark Mall (Oklahoma)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN 45-tenant, 250,000 square ft mall. Article was previously deleted at AfD, and then restored. Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: I was able to rapidly find sourcing to help flesh out the article, it appears to be a unique center well-covered by the press in the region.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I still don't see indicia of notability. The article reflects refs that indicate run-of-the-mill things: that the land was purchased, the mall was built, occupancy rose and fell, and the mall has stores.  The refs are also primarily to a local paper, with a circulation of 3,400. So I don't see this as meeting GNG.  And the article is quite small by wp notability standards -- per wp:outcomes, we don't generally retain stand-alone articles for smaller malls. The related recent discussion here is on point. Epeefleche (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OUTCOMES goes both ways. A subject meets GNG if it meets GNG, regardless of rules of thumb. There are many notable malls smaller than what OUTCOMES says, and some larger ones that may not be notable.  The current level of citation and coverage in the article is far beyond what most mall articles have.--Milowent • hasspoken  12:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I added a few cites to article profiles in the The Oklahoman, circulation 125,000, the paper of record for that U.S. state.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. About half the cites are to the local 3,400-circulation The Journal Record. And the cites generally appear to be to run-of-the-mill coverage that is the type that even non-notable malls would have, IMHO (stores leave, stores open, anniversary, etc.). Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already added more references than perhaps 50% of the articles on Wikipedia. The mall is profiled in the paper of the record for the region (The Oklahoman) as being unique, i didn't bother adding another 50 cites about the day to day stuff.--Milowent • hasspoken  03:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Cites on day-to-day stuff won't impact notability. I'm not sure that the present cites don't actually fall into that category, though. The fact that an article has more cites than another does not necessarily mean it is more notable. The quality of the cites both in terms of substance and being non-local coverage, for example, are important. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the The Oklahoman considered regional media? It is at least the paper of record for the state. If so, this article passes WP:AUD as referred to by WP:LOCAL as far as non-local coverage is concerned. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the whole "paper of record" thing is a bit confusing. The paper seems to be considered the "paper of record" in at least the city, and perhaps the state, but I see nothing indicating it is that in the region -- though we know that a century ago the territory's paper of record was The Indian Chieftain.  In any event, the issue is the level of coverage - it is run-of-the-mill coverage that you would see about any non-notable mall, IMHO, rather than substantial coverage that we need for GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Small and nonnotable mall, only of local interest. Fails WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete – Marginally notable, but not hardly enough to meet GNG and ORG. United States Man (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - is properly sourced even if too small to meet WP:OUTCOMES for malls. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic has forty years of history.  Sources in the article show that the topic satisfies WP:GNG, and that the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. The consensus, as reflected in the discussion here at Common Outcomes; Malls, is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K square feet (at least; some editors believe the cutoff is higher) -- a level which this is clearly below. Epeefleche (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.