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 delete, with no objection to create a redirect to
Centre Place. I'm not seeing 'keep' arguments grounded in policy here, and the proposed guideline
Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) does not appear to cover defunct shopping structures. ~
Amatulić (
talk) 00:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)reply
KeepPiotrus, I created the page in 2011 when I split
Centre Place/Downtown Plaza and created this page. I really don't care if it is deleted or not, but I would have rather had a community discussion. I also think there might be more information in New Zealand, as it lasted eighteen years and I am sure not all of the sources relevant to it are on the internet (something which is common before the mass-use of the internet by news sources occurred).
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 16:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
We have many malls that were operating through 2013, as this mall was, that attract internet media coverage -- if they are notable. Even where the media is in languages other than English -- unlike here. "It lasted 18 years" does not confer notability on it. And we can't keep on the basis of "maybe there is coverage, but I can't see it, that is substantial non-local notable coverage." Otherwise, that would be an argument in most AfD discussions. IMHO.
Epeefleche (
talk) 17:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Since wp:notability is not conferred, arguing that "x does not confer notability" is a
truism.
Unscintillating (
talk) 01:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete fails WP:GNG. malls are not inherently notable. and this one makes no demonstration of GNG being met.
LibStar (
talk) 02:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:GNG. No usable references in the article, and a search failed to find any reliable sources. --
RoySmith(talk) 17:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Centre Place and include any relevant history there. It a logical place to combine for each of reader use.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment When DGG undid Epeefleche's prod,
diff, he said, "merge available--its at least a good redirect".
Unscintillating (
talk) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep or redirect I doubt that this topic is wp:notable, but there is no theoretical case for deletion given the proof that the article is a split. The article is a split from
Centre Place, and the place to discuss wp:notability in this case is not at AfD, but rather the talk page.
Unscintillating (
talk) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)reply
If the topic is not notable (and you say you doubt this one is notable), then the subject of the article does not meet our notability criteria. And a keep !vote is not appropriate.
Epeefleche (
talk) 06:48, 10 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.
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 delete, with no objection to create a redirect to
Centre Place. I'm not seeing 'keep' arguments grounded in policy here, and the proposed guideline
Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) does not appear to cover defunct shopping structures. ~
Amatulić (
talk) 00:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)reply
KeepPiotrus, I created the page in 2011 when I split
Centre Place/Downtown Plaza and created this page. I really don't care if it is deleted or not, but I would have rather had a community discussion. I also think there might be more information in New Zealand, as it lasted eighteen years and I am sure not all of the sources relevant to it are on the internet (something which is common before the mass-use of the internet by news sources occurred).
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 16:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
We have many malls that were operating through 2013, as this mall was, that attract internet media coverage -- if they are notable. Even where the media is in languages other than English -- unlike here. "It lasted 18 years" does not confer notability on it. And we can't keep on the basis of "maybe there is coverage, but I can't see it, that is substantial non-local notable coverage." Otherwise, that would be an argument in most AfD discussions. IMHO.
Epeefleche (
talk) 17:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Since wp:notability is not conferred, arguing that "x does not confer notability" is a
truism.
Unscintillating (
talk) 01:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete fails WP:GNG. malls are not inherently notable. and this one makes no demonstration of GNG being met.
LibStar (
talk) 02:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:GNG. No usable references in the article, and a search failed to find any reliable sources. --
RoySmith(talk) 17:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Centre Place and include any relevant history there. It a logical place to combine for each of reader use.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment When DGG undid Epeefleche's prod,
diff, he said, "merge available--its at least a good redirect".
Unscintillating (
talk) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep or redirect I doubt that this topic is wp:notable, but there is no theoretical case for deletion given the proof that the article is a split. The article is a split from
Centre Place, and the place to discuss wp:notability in this case is not at AfD, but rather the talk page.
Unscintillating (
talk) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)reply
If the topic is not notable (and you say you doubt this one is notable), then the subject of the article does not meet our notability criteria. And a keep !vote is not appropriate.
Epeefleche (
talk) 06:48, 10 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.