Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manukau Supa Centre


 * 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 There is no site-wide consensus that all malls are inherently notable (unlike countries and towns, for which there is such a consensus), and several indications of a contrary consensus. Neither the article nor the the discussion indicate any particular reasonwhy this specific mall is any more notable than any other mall. The cited references show only that this mall exists, they say nothing about it. This is not what WP:N means by "significant coverage" or "more than trivial" discussion. (Google news searches reveal no sources, either). The statement "one of the first super centers in NZ" might be a reason for notability, but it is neither sourced nor even included in the article. If WP:CSD applied to malls, this would fit. However, it is possible that a valid article could be created on this subject. There is no bar to creating a well-sourced article, and i am willing to userfy this article if anyone asks for it. DES (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Manukau Supa Centre

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-exceptional shopping center with no claim to notability  Citi Cat   ♫ 05:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, this was one of the first super centers in NZ. Mathmo Talk 06:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article is clearly only just a starting out stub (thus no need to be too harsh on it!), so I did a quick search round and added multiple external references. I invite all other voters to do the same. Mathmo Talk 06:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Does any of this explain why it's notable?  Citi Cat   ♫ 16:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, by definition it is notable because it has been noted. Mathmo Talk 20:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete fails WP:N and WP:CORP. Jauerback 14:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.   Mathmo Talk 20:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete random shopping center. No explanation of what a Supa center is, just a brand? - SimonLyall 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Mathmo.- gadfium 05:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions.   —Thewinchester (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Article has now been converted to a well-structured stub, and someone who has access to either BOMA or their local affiliate database, Factiva, or LexisNexis can happily come along and conduct some significant improvment to it to confirm its notability. Thewinchester (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to harp on this, but before someone confirms its notability, can someone at least claim what its notability is? So far no one has said it's anything more than a medium to large shopping center. Gadfium said keep "per Mathmo", who said "it's notable because it's been noted"  Citi Cat   ♫ 17:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is not being a large shopping center enough for notability? What next, an article on a country being deleted because being a large country is not enough for notability? To quote from what I've said elsewhere: "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." And also additionally another quote from what I've quoted elsewhere: "All malls should have articles here because they are the local landmarks of our times, often replacing Main Street or town squares. They have as much influence on towns as highways, schools, or stadiums. They are substantial economic enterprises and raise major issues involving land use, taxation, and globalization. Too many people love to talk, read or write about them for us to play silly games and try to exclude them.  This may be hard for people to believe, but in the real world, they are far more important than the latest Virtual community, Pokemon card, or webcomic." Mathmo Talk 02:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point, the next sentence in WP:N states "A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right." Can you point out any notability guideline that the article's subject meets? By the way, another wikipedia article states "Because there are 46,990 shopping malls and centers in the U.S. . . ., this list is restricted to notable shopping malls.  Citi Cat   ♫ 03:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability guidelines do not exist for every possible subject. They are merely finer details that fall under the broad principles of WP:N. And it is no surprise the other article says only notable malls, this means only ones that have wikipedia articles or ones that you can reasonably expect could have one. Mathmo Talk 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A number of editors created a proposed guideline WP:MALL exactly to help decide what makes a mall notable, but there was not a consensus to adopt it so it is labelled "rejected." Edison 20:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources exist to prove notability, and the article has a clear claim to importance, as one of the first super centres in the country. Rebecca 03:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Smaller than the limit for a regional with only 79% of the minimum Gross leasable area. (edited to add: The latest (2004 ICSC definitions of regional and superregional apply only to U.S. malls.) Only 2 references, with both of them from the management of the business, which is not independent as required by WP:N. Perhaps more refs can be found offline in print sources to substantiate its claimed historical importance. Edison 20:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Saying that it is a regional mall without meeting the generally accepted size for a regional mall is not an assertion of notability.  Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 01:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all cited references contain only directory-style information. This is not the level of coverage required by WP:CORP or WP:N.Garrie 22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.