Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Promenade Shops at Saucon Valley

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Promenade Shops at Saucon Valley

The Promenade Shops at Saucon Valley (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)

The available sources are exclusively local, as the subject is of exclusively local interest and significance. Currently WP:AUD does not allow articles that have no national-level sources, though I see from the Talk page that aspect of the guideline is under discussion and some are voting to delete that part of the guideline. I think the article should be discussed for deletion, though I am not sure which way I am voting specifically. CorporateM (Talk) 13:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plenty of sources about shopping center to prove its notability. Just because they are local sources and not national sources does not mean much as most shopping centers and malls do not get covered in national sources unless they are well-known like the Mall of America or a major event happens at it that captures national attention. Using WP:AUD as a guideline for deletion is not the best argument as a lot of things are notable locally or regionally and should not be deleted simply on the fact they haven't been covered in national sources. Dough4872 14:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:AUD. No coverage beyond local; articles such as this might demonstrate notability for local shoppers but not for anyone beyond a thirty mile radius of this very nice part of Pennsylvania. I'm a big fan of a lot of local shops and businesses, and all of them get coverage in the local paper. Every time the owners burp they gets their names in the paper. Every lawsuit is chronicled. Every zoning variance covered in detail. Shall we have an article on them? Coretheapple (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Over 95% of shopping malls do not get much press coverage outside of a 30 mile radius. If you are saying this article should be deleted then we should delete most shopping mall articles. Most people in California have little interest in news concerning this mall whereas most people in Pennsylvania have little interest in news concerning malls in California. What would probably be a better measurement of notability of shopping centers is how much it is covered in local media, as that is generally where most of the stories of most malls come from. If a mall receives frequent coverage in local media (like this mall and most of the dominant malls within a given metropolitan area), then it is notable enough for its own article. If the mall of shopping center does not get much coverage in local media other than advertisements or the occasional news story (like the average strip mall), then it should probably be deleted and not have its own article. Dough4872 01:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's fair to say that the average, unremarkable strip mall would not be notable. Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and I think that editors may want to peruse previous shopping mall article deletion discussions, of which there are quite a few. I don't think that an AfD is an optimal place to discuss which shopping mall articles are and are not worth deleting, and to be frank I think that a bit of research on the issue was warranted before this AfD, which is why I tagged it rather than starting an AfD. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with our standards for shopping mall articles, which is why I felt the discussion would be enhanced through an AfD, but looking at Category:Shopping malls in Pennsylvania, it does seem like the community has been accepting of articles about routine shopping malls. Many editors contribute to Wikipedia almost exclusively regarding items of local interest and I believe we also have a lot of articles about local lakes or other geographic landmarks that are not of any particular significance. CorporateM (Talk) 15:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "other stuff exists" is necessarily a persuasive argument. Richland Town Centre is sourced to a press release and a blogspot blog. There's a lot of crap in Wikipedia to be sure. I wouldn't put articles about lakes or geographical features in the same category as glorified press releases. Coretheapple (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Enough local noteable sources exist that it appears the article could be filled out. Esw01407 (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2015 (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.