Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston Premium Outlets

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. Star Mississippi 22:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Premium Outlets

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Houston Premium Outlets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The source table below quotes the applicable part of the "Examples of trivial coverage" within the WP:CORPDEPTH policy.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"(PRN) Construction Begins on Houston Premium Outlets(R)". Chron. No press release No press release No standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage ✘ No
LongHorn Steakhouse opens new location at Houston Premium Outlets". Yes Yes No standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage ✘ No
"1 shot at Houston Premium Outlets in Cypress" Yes Yes No coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies; brief or passing mentions ✘ No
"Mother accused of using children to steal $1,600 worth of merchandise from Houston Premium Outlets". Yes Yes No coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies; brief or passing mentions ✘ No
"Police looking for suspect accused of taking inappropriate video at Houston Premium Outlets". Yes Yes No coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies; brief or passing mentions ✘ No
"2 men arrested and charged for stealing 6 catalytic converters, saws worth $9K, deputies say". Yes Yes No coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies; brief or passing mentions ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is other coverage such as this article. Additionally, other malls such as Katy Mills and First Colony Mall have very few sources that count toward GNG, like the sources above. WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ROUTINE have been deemed inapplicable to shopping malls. OfTheUsername (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we are not to apply the CORPDEPTH/ROUTINE standards of review, but we do still require significant coverage of a subject to exist and I am not seeing anything that suggests that, whether in the usual online sources or in newspaper archives. It is technically correct to say that our criteria excluding routine and purely local events wouldn't apply to a place (not being an event) but that doesn't really change that those events are not the type of thing that we typically cover in an encyclopedia, whether the article is about the event itself or a place, object or person associated with it. Local coverage of routine local events are not significant coverage for any useful purpose. I suppose were a place noted to have a statistically unusual frequency of such events occurring, that may establish notability, but in that case there would be a source we could evaluate reporting that about the place, making the event distinction a moot point. As such, I am leaning delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are tons of shopping mall AFDs that agree that the level of coverage seen here is enough for a mall to be notable, though. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken some more time to review both our notability guidelines today since it seems like those are also in contention and I don't think the relevant SNG is consistent with a standard of SIGCOV that much weaker than GNG. Maybe slightly weaker, but none of the sources has the level of coverage (except maybe the Houston Business Journal article posed by Esw01407 — there seems to be consensus it's reliable too, so I'm happy to accept that as one source) to provide any useful content that would not immediately run afoul of NOT. "Two sentences about the subject" is basically the bare minimum you can water SIGCOV down to for it to still even be a thing. I don't believe the relevant SNG (NBUILD) supports that level of watering down, either.
    Further, it is not clear to me that there is broader consensus that the provisions of NCORP are entirely inapplicable to malls. In the one cited AfD where CORPDEPTH is even engaged with (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hampton Towne Centre (2nd nomination)), it appears that the one arguing in favour of a keep (which happens to be you there) didn't challenge its applicability. It is not clear to me what standard of SIGCOV is used in those AfDs and I don't think it is necessary to try and divine it either when we have perfectly usable SNGs and GNG to apply.
    On the applicability or ROUTINE, there is the linked ANI thread (from that same AfD) which purports to deem it inapplicable. I'm afraid I don't really see it there either. It is true that the ROUTINE shortcut points towards NEVENTS, which you do correctly point out (in both discussions, in fact). Unfortunately, there are really only three other participants that I can see that really engage with routine-ness of coverage, and although this could be because of my failure to perfectly step into the "neutral, uninvolved closer" role (obviously being involved here) I cannot see a consensus for what level of scrutiny is appropriate re. routine-ness, only that some scrutiny is.
    All in all, I do not see anything that convinces me that we should be applying a substantially different standard of SIGCOV. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, Article clearly needs work, but sourcing is good enough to keep it. There is also coverage at Houston Business Journal. Esw01407 (talk)
  • Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Simon Property Group, but do not delete history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose a merge, as I feel that would violate WP:UNDUE and there is enough verifiable content about this individual mall. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't really think a merge is a possible outcome. Either the content of the article as is is WP:NOT (in addition to undue) and the sourcing available isn't able to support improvements to make it not-NOT, or it isn't and the article should simply be kept. I suppose a redirect could be possible, though. Maybe to List of Simon Property Group properties#Texas? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Simon Property Group, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 25 June 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Houston_Premium_Outlets&oldid=1096350387"