Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown Plaza (Hamilton, New Zealand)

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]

Downtown Plaza (Hamilton, New Zealand)

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

NN defunct mall. Was PRODed; prod was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing remotely notable NealeFamily (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Creator, User:Ktr101, is an experienced Wikipedian. I'd like to read his response before voting (Keving, ping me when you reply here). All readers, Kevin included, may want to check out and vote on the new, proposed, and highly related Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) guideline. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Piotrus, 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.