Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakville 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 redirect to Oakville, Ontario. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oakville Place

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

NN 453,248 sq ft mall. Had been PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~Selective merge~~ to Oakville, Ontario. Coverage is primarily local (e.g. [1], [2]), and the topic doesn't appear to qualify for an article per WP:AUD. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is more appropriate. If you are going to add refs, you may as well do so to the target. And the existing article at the time of nomination (and now) was wholly unreferenced, and not therefore containing appropriate merge material (though the target now at least has it). Good job on the refs that show, if not notability, that it exists. Epeefleche (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said nothing about WP:V problems in your nom. Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche: I find sourcing existing content in support of a merge to be easier and less time-consuming than rewriting content within the Oakville, Ontario article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I see you rewrote content, at the end of the day, in the target article, reflecting the sourcing, etc. I think redirect is therefore now appropriate. In general, I think it's a better idea to create the material at the target. First, it cuts down on the steps that need be done -- there is no need thereafter to move material. Second, it clarifies the scope of what the editor may wish to have merged, which otherwise is not clear. --Epeefleche (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can do that too. I've went ahead and added more sourced content to the Oakville, Ontario article. It's likely that more sources are available to further verify information in the Oakville Place article, so I retain my selective merge !vote, which will ultimately result in a redirect anyway. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and redirect~~ ~~Fails WP:V, so the article requires a complete rewrite.~~ As far as wp:notability, I found no hits on news.google.com/newspapers, and two gazetteer type hits on regular Google news. On Google books, the Directory of Major Malls shows that the nearest competing mall is 2 miles away, so perhaps this mall has a smaller influence on the region than a smaller mall in a smaller community. There were a number of minor hits on Google books, shifting between brief business connections, and gazetteer type attention. I found no metrics in the primary source: no GLA, no acreage, no store count, no anchor count, no parking places, no annual visitors. I count 106 stores, while the article lists 98. I suspect that the topic is wp:notable, but it is enough for now to keep the topic included in the encyclopedia in a way that it can be expanded. Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

!Vote changed. Article has received the major rewrite, and in aggregate now satisfies WP:N, although consensus is that there is no current need for a standalone article, which is completely normal as per the lede of WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the two sources in my !vote above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noted them. One tells us that there is weak drywall in the mall, along with some details about one of the escalators. One references the mall as a venue. As for WP:V, they don't help because they are not in the article. As for WP:N, I felt that they carried little weight, although no one can say that the topic has not been noticed by the world at large. Unscintillating (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, I'm still for a selective merge anyway due to coverage I've found to be local-only (WP:AUD). FYI, they were added to the article, for procedural purposes, as articles are typically supposed to have some sources. Additionally, regarding a merge, while content in Wikipedia should not rely upon primary sources (e.g. the Mall's website), they are usable to verify content in articles. In a merge scenario, some sourcing from the mall's website would be fine to use in the Oakville, Ontario article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More sources have been added to the article to verify content within it, in support of a merge to Oakville, Ontario. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, as discussed above, redirect ... in any event, either way the main focus here, the deletion of a stand-alone where one is not warranted, would be accomplished. Epeefleche (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oakville, Ontario, preserving the revision history per my comment above. Struck/modified my initial !vote above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with a redirect. Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - Consensus herein thus far is now unanimous for a redirect, per the nominator's comment directly above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 19 June 2014 (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.