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 keep. --Core desat 06:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Manukau City[edit]

All of these malls fail WP:N and WP:CORP. Creator probably has a case of WP:COI, since all he/she is doing is creating articles about malls. Jauerback 13:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please get your facts straight.

a) Above user is not the creator of this article.

b) The user who created this article is a known, long-term contributor.

c) The user you linked to creates articles about malls owned by different operators, so the WP:COI accusation is dubious. Ingolfson 08:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with WP:N and WP:CORP; but there's no evidence of violation of WP:COI. Oli Filth 13:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per nom Harlowraman 23:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail WP:N and WP:CORP: [reply]

Comment Striking the above five additional articles added for consideration. This is a breach of process as articles were added for consideration after the AFD was opened and comments made. If they are not notable, then open a new AfD to consider these articles. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have removed the AfD templates from the above, struck, articles. If Jauerback wants them back on, correctly this time - fair enough. Ingolfson 12:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response as I posted on Thewinchester's talk page: "Well, you're partly correct, so I won't argue with you. I didn't "attempt" to add five (or four?) more articles to this AFD. That was my intent the entire time. I hadn't reached step III of the AFD listing process where I listed it on the the articles for deletion page with ((subst:afd3 | pg=PageName)). Apparently, someone saw the AFD tag on one the articles and gave his two cents. So, your assessment is accurate, but not entirely... either way, I won't fight what you did." Jauerback 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Westfield Manukau City, which at least is sourced. ~~Neutral for now on the other ones until I research them.~~ Weak delete on the rest, which seem to fail WP:RS (I tried and found nothing). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Lukes currently contains multiple references as well, plus I'd imagine there would be a significant number of references only available offline. So don't base your decision purely on what you can find through google. Mathmo ^Talk 20:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 19:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the possible exception of Westfield Downtown, these are major shopping malls and subjects I would expect to find an article about in Wikipedia. At least one of these has an entry in the Te Ara encyclopedia.-gadfium 19:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Being a big mall is not notable.--Victor falk 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having third-party reliable sources is Twenty Years 05:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, these are all the biggest malls in auckland (which is itself the biggest city in NZ). Naturally coverage of them does exist in multiple sources about all of them. Mathmo ^Talk 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coverage does not per se confer notability. in what way are they connected to an unusual event or person, or what qualities do they possess that separates them from any random mall?--Victor falk 21:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly I see this, that people believe notable means the subject has to be unusual/unique. Not so, to directly quote from the start of WP:N: " The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"". It has been deemed worthy to notice, by being noticed by other than themselves. QED. Mathmo ^Talk 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All or at least most per gadfium. They seem notable enough, and are cited. Recurring dreams 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as explained above. They looked to be significant malls for the area although expansion and more sources would be needed though.--JForget 01:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Gadfium. They seem notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Gadfium. All malls costing multiple millions to build and turning over many millions each year have a certain inherent notability, no matter how bland some may appear to you. I may spend some time this weekend to provide refs.Ingolfson 08:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Westfield St Lukes also has a reliable reference for its 6 million people per year turnover. Certainly pretty notable via that alone. Ingolfson 08:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By implication, it seems you are saying that all business that have 7-figure turnovers or more are inherently notable. If not, why are malls a special case? In any case, I would imagine that it's impossible to build a mall for less than a million dollars/pounds, so this really boils down to an argument based on the fact that the mall exists. Oli Filth 02:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I'm not from Auckland, can someone please send me (here, on my talk page or email is fine) a list of the institutional major SCs in the metro area and surrounds? (I'm only asking for what would be common knowledge to a resident from the city - for example I could name about 10 shopping centres in Perth and Melbourne immediately without even thinking). I would be happy to see if I can get researched reliable information on them, we've been working on this for Australian centres as well as some really big ones were getting nominated for deletion. Am also happy to consider requests for any other shopping centre over 20000 sqm. Orderinchaos 13:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable centre, appropriatly sourced, and now formatted as a well structured stub for an appropriate person in country to improve. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major shopping centre in a major city, appropriately sourced. Rebecca 03:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a big part of the identity of Manukau City Leaderofearth 01:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the case, why can't the useful/relevant information in this article be merged into the Manukau City article?
  - Because you don't need to merge it if separation makes sense. And yes, anything turning over millions of dollars and being visited by millions of shoppers per year IS inherently notable. As for your 1 million dollars comments, I can only smile. Consultants, architects and lawyers fees eat up more than that before any mall even goes to construction stage. Ingolfson 03:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, misunderstood your 1 million dollar comment. As per my above comment, yes I believe that a mall would have to WORK at being NOT notable. Many may not be flash, many may be boring, but as I put it above, they have notability via commercial importance and being a regular feature in many people's lives. Ingolfson 03:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved to the talk page a huge number of references that I previously posted here, so as to make the AfD more streamlined and readable. Mathmo ^Talk 10:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Has a few references, comes very close to the size requirement for a "regional mall". Such a retail establishment might be more important to a smaller country than it would be in a larger one. Edison 20:04, 6 August 2007 (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.