Deletion of Sumter Mall (2nd nomination)

Comment: A sufficient number of sources cover the subject in sufficient depth to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This is absurd.  A week after the DRV ended, this gets recreated.  It's essentially the same article, with essentially the same set of references, all in a local paper.  So it fails  for exactly the same reasons it failed the first time.  Recreating it was borderline disruptive.  The statement, ''At the DRV and AfD there was consensus that Sumter Mall met '' is equally absurd.  The AfD closing stated, ''The policy arguments clearly show that this is not independantly notable.''  How do you turn that into ''there was consensus that Sumter Mall met 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Sources are reliable, independent and third party. Enough sources to be 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: meets . Looking at the deletion review, I get the impression that the deleted article was shorter, but I would have probably supported keeping the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumter Mall after sources were mentioned there. Consensus can change, and when it depends on which editors notice the AFD (usually very few) maybe it isn't consensus of the community at all
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)