Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post Oak Mall

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post Oak Mall

Post Oak Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable shopping mall in Texas. A search turns up no reliable sources to verify the page's content (e.g. the cancelled Joske's anchor). Features some original research as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No sources, no assertion, no notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is notable, plenty of reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Tim Q. Wells 18:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: It is probably the only mall within the mall in a 90 or so mile radius. And the Joske's proof?

Joske's never opened, a distinct Foley's opened there instead

• Keep as revised. Multiple reliable sources have been located to meet the standard definition of notability. Burntsauce 17:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't have a look at them, did you? See my comment below. --Victor falk 05:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete wow they have a J.C Pennys, no notability, every city has a malls.Ridernyc 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: No offense, but that's the lamest AfD I've ever heard. Using your twisted logic, half of the malls listed on Wikipedia would get deleted. TheListUpdater 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Half? Only half???

• Keep. Article is notable and well-sourced, and the deletion reasoning was querulous. Rebecca 23:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not claim notability over and above being a mall--Victor falk 03:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It has many reliable sources that make it notable. Tim Q. Wells 04:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Regrettably, Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers) could not attain a community consensus. That leaves us with the Wild West of WP:N, which this meets and exceeds given the multiple and non-trivial sources written about the subject. Silensor 04:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-trivial!?

1. unofficial site
2. OAG Travel Information: "Featuring five major department stores, this shopping mall also offers :over 100 specialty stores, a children's play area, and an array of eateries."
3. Yahoo travel: "Featuring five major department stores, this shopping mall also offers over 100 :specialty stores, a children's play area, and an array of eateries."
4. discoverourtown.com: "Featuring five major department stores, this shopping mall also offers over :100 specialty stores, a children's play area, and an array of eateries."
5. cblproperties: a map and stats.
6. Picture from the portfolio of the architects that designed the "Pavilion on Post Oak Mall"

Those sources are certainly not... quadrivial... --Victor falk 05:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No need for sarcasm friend, I was referring to a Lexis Nexis search which reveals dozens of related articles to this specific subject. Many fall into the non-trivial category. Silensor 05:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. May technically be notable, but I'm going to WP:IGNORE on this. If it was special in some way, I might be swayed - but it's not? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication that it meets WP:CORP. --Elonka 06:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, cited sources are trivial. Quite willing to reconsider my position if the other (claimed) sources are actually cited, but I can't find a thing besides standard fluff and name drops. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - these articles are important, and notability is inherent. This article is particularly well researched and written.139.48.81.98 15:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the way that people are acknowledging that it is "technically" notable and voting to delete it anyway tempts me to ignore various wikipedia rules myself, such as WP:NPA, WP:SOCK WP:Vandalism etc. Kappa 16:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This kind of talk may seem a bit... uncivil to some. What do you mean by "technically" notable? And who has said that?--Victor falk 22:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed Chase me ladies' comment. And, thinking of it, there is no such thing as a "technically" notable article. At least if no wikilawyering is involved. An article can be considered notable if editors judge it meets standards or not for wp:n, wp:rs and wp:v (btw, I still haven't seen no sources that don't risibly fail those criterion, I will happily change my vote if such one is brought forward), and should not keep an article on "technical" merits--Victor falk 22:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per many of the fine comments above. --Myles Long 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not the most notable mall on the planet, but I think that it is notable enough and the current sources are sufficient for verifiability standards. RFerreira 21:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, completely non-notable.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 08:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Completely non-notable? Most of the N.N. malls on Wiki don't have any references save for the official webpage. And you're sockpuppeting, as well. Shame on you. TheListUpdater 14:47, 12 October 2007 (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.