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 Hinton,_Alberta#Infrastructure. If there is any material that could be used, it can be transferred over Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Parks West Mall

Parks West Mall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

NN 16-store, 138,000 square ft., mall. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage) – which this is clearly below. Topic fails GNG; as the coverage is local (see wp:AUD) and/or non-substantial. Epeefleche ( talk) 07:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• The only potentially significant reference I see is the citation in the Haber book. Could somebody who has access to that please summarize what the book says about the mall? If this was some important test case, I would say it infers notability. If it's just some passing mention of a nothing-special contract dispute, not so much. Until we know what the book actually says, it's impossible to evaluate whether, and how much, it contributes to meeting WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Yup, in the first instance the case itself is not a secondary source, so it does not count towards notability. One would need substantial secondary source coverage.

And then, that would merely go to whether the case or the principle of the case was notable -- not whether one of the named litigants in the case is notable. There's no evidence of that either.

Finally, the case is about principles of contract law as applied to certain facts. Specifically (primarily): a) whether there was a binding contract between Mark's Work Wearhouse which was looking at granting a franchise to Messrs. Jennett and Slavik, once accepted by Parks West Mall; b) whether there was a basis for the trial judge to find, from the conduct of Jennett and Slavik, that they knew that the mall had accepted their offer; c) whether Marks induced Jennett and Slavik to breach the contract; d) whether Marks, if it did induce a breach of contract, was justified in doing so; and e) whether Marks owed Jennett and Slavik a duty of care in giving advice to them both as to opening a store and as to their position under the contract. The case is not even primarily about the mall, but about a franchisor and franchisees fighting about a possible lease at the mall.

And, as anyone who has studied caselaw knows, cases in the casebook method are used to demonstrate legal principles, and are included in law books because the opinions written in deciding them reflect principles of law; not because the cases impart notable information about the parties. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Commment. I fully agree with Epeefleche's comments; mere inclusion of a court opinion in a law textbook does not, in and of itself, support the notability of the parties to the underlying legal action. postdlf ( talk) 16:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment. See comment here. Epeefleche ( talk) 02:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as failing WP:N, or LImited Merge to Hinton,_Alberta#Infrastructure per PWilkinson. My attempts to find reliable sources only turned up the usual assortment of facebook, twitter, yelp, our own article, and random blogs and directories. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

If merge, a short mention is all it needs, but I'm not even sure that's justified. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep – The access to newspaper sources from the late 80s and early 90s is difficult. I did find an article in the Edmonton Journal which is entirely about the mall and its construction, which in my view constitutes significant coverage, and it allowed me to expand the article. "Weak" because it is only the one source so far. Others I've found are just passing mentions in articles about events or crimes at the mall. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^{\  talk /} 01:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Hinton, Alberta. While the available sources seem to fall some way short of justifying a standalone article, User:Paul Erik seems to have found enough local coverage to justify two or three sourced sentences there. PWilkinson ( talk) 22:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• I would not have a problem with a redirect (or a delete), but for the above reasons don't support a merge. Epeefleche ( talk) 22:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It's a mall. An ordinary one. It fails notability in every way. The argument that one article was written about its construction is overreaching, that certainly does not constitute significant coverage. Jacona ( talk) 16:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Weak Redirect to Hinton, Alberta. As has been pointed out, getting online access to media sources from this mall's heyday can be difficult. Still, until such sources are presented I think a redirect, preserving the article's history, is the best way to go. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 02:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC). reply
• Delete. Sixteen stores, that's all. Looks like the local news controversy was from local store owners objecting to the advantage that big competitors sometimes enjoy in favor over them. Not untypical. (The comments about the significance in case law are correct. Mention per se is mere mention. The case, hopefully, would have the same result in a mega-mall case or strip-mall case.) – S. Rich ( talk) 03:06, 14 July 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.