Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonville Place

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. -Scottywong| confer _ 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masonville Place

Masonville Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, WP:GNG, no third-party sources for notability. Tgeairn (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. 20:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. 20:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Clicking on the Google News link above links to several articles, some of which are comprised of significant coverage about this topic, which therefore passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.

• Source examples from the Google news link for this AfD discussion include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (editorial), [6] (short article)
• Please strongly consider performing the suggested source searching at WP:BEFORE, section D, prior to nominating articles for deletion.

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I disagree. Those sources are 1) a student newspaper about the local transit system, 2) an article stating that Apple might be opening a new store in a local newspaper (again, the article subject is not the mall), 3) an article about an auto museum that is no longer even in the mall (and again, not about the mall), 4) again about the auto museum, and 5) an article about local transportation and parking. None of these sources (nor any of the others I looked at) even approach being a reliable source for notability purposes about this mall. Thanks again for your message though. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Larger malls are generally considered to be notable (see WP:NPLACE), and in addition the mall is a hub for several city bus routes. PKT(alk) 15:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, NPLACE is an essay about the common outcomes for places - not "Notability - Place(s)" as I believe it may have been at one time. WP:LOCAL is another essay that addresses malls. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NorthAmerica1000.  The Steve 
• Weak keep - Larger malls impact a lot of peoples lives and take up lots of space in a community, so reliable sources tend to write about larger malls and events at large malls. An assumption that reliable sources tend to write about larger malls and events at large malls is why larger malls are generally considered to be notable. In this case, while there are a number of articles that mention Masonville Place, I didn't find any article that discussed Masonville Place itself in detail. Most of them are about events at Masonville Place, which usually are more newsy than encyclopedic. However, with enough coverage from such event articles, there usually is enought bits and piece of a topic (Masonville Place) from which to cobble together a Wikipedia article on Masonville Place from relaible sources. Some Wikipedian's don't think that is enought, particularly since WP:GNG specifically says "received significant coverage," so there's difference of opinions on this (hence my weak keep). I found only one article with Masonville Place in the title, but that was a press release and didn't really focus on Masonville Place itsef.[7] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:55, 27 August 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.