Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palm Beach Plaza


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Palm Beach Plaza

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Speedy deletion was declined and removed; this article isn't important enough or notable enough to have an article. It seems to be a local mall. TBrandley 23:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 00:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC) - gadfium 00:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Please take into account this mall is in New Zealand. While a mall of this size may not be notable in the USA/UK, this is reasonably signifcant in New Zealand. It serves a suburb of around 20,000. I can't find any more sources yet, although Isn't the newspaper article enough? I really don't think it's fair to delete this just because there are too many malls on Wikipedia. The other think is, it would be hard to say the mall isn't notable without having been there (which I have done). Maybe it's only a New Zealand thing, but this mall really is the centre of the community. It is the most significant thing in the suburb. No disrespect meant, but I don't think it is appropriate to comment on what the mall is/isn't ('It is a local mall!') without having been there. And the only two people who HAVE been there have said it is notable. Videomaniac29 (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * comment There seems to be many malls in Wikipedia such as Rockaway Townsquare, The Shops at Riverside, The Westchester, Roosevelt Field Mall. I'm not sure what the criteria are, i.e. WP:MALLS? I see there was a proposal WP:MALL that failed. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG, though. Sure, that source is a good one, and reliable, but just one source regarding itself isn't notable enough, it needs to be widely covered, regardless of where you live, or are. That doesn't matter, nor does the fact that it serves a suburb of 20,000. It wouldn't be deleted because there are too many malls, no, it would be due to WP:GNG, a notability policy. I welcome any further comments or opinions from other editors, too. Regardless of this, you are obviously editing in good faith. TBrandley 03:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE, tell me how to find a more notable source. Very rarely will there be a notable source about anything in New Zealand, other than the local paper. I know this mall is notable enough, but there just isn't the media coverage in NZ as there is elsewhere. Many NZ articles solely use local papers as sources, and they are not up for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoppingCandyTexas (talk • contribs) 03:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have recently added a new source. ('but just one source regarding itself isn't notable enough') So it no longer solely contains self-regarding sources. I doubt there'd be anymore sources, but I'll post here if I find one. Videomaniac29 (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just found a source from major NZ newspaper. Quotes from it: 'Papamoa is Tauranga's fastest growing suburb and thousands of people visit the plaza every day. Tauranga's population is forecast to grow to 150,000 residents over the next 20 years. The plaza's immediate catchment encompasses 17,000 residents and a higher than average median income for the Bay of Plenty region. During the summer holidays turnover takes a huge surge when the immediate catchment swells with up to 216,000 visitors.' To me, that seems notable enough. Please tell me if you think it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videomaniac29 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have added more info backed up by several more sources, among them the NZ Herald, one of the widely distributed papers in NZ. That proves it is notable. Could you please consider removing deletion requests now because I made the article in Good Faith, and now it is backed up my numerous notable sources. For an NZ articles, it has well above average sources. Videomaniac29 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that, but I'd still like to keep this open, just in case someone has something to say regarding it, and to make sure that it is for sure notable. Cheers, TBrandley 04:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

But as it no longer violates Wikipedia's policy of notability, could this be closed quite soon, so the article becomes 'normal'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videomaniac29 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's the point, I'm not sure, and would like to await the opinions of some others, quickly. Regards, TBrandley 04:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe that the new sources definitely make the article notable. Well done to Vid' for putting in the effort to locate the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoppingCandyTexas (talk • contribs) 05:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think the article is crap. The citations are awful.  The article suffers from problems with lists.  It almost needs to be nuked and re-started from scratch.  That said, Google News search shows 27 sources that reference it, including a fire in there, what management is doing, etc.  This is covered by the major national newspaper and by local papers.  .  Mall meets WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well the thing is, I made and saved the basic part of the article. Then, as I was typing up improvements and extra bits, I noticed it was up for deletion, so I ceased improving the article because my effort would have been wasted if it was deleted. That's why I am wanting this discussion to end ASAP, because I've added the requireed sources to make it notable. When this ends, I will continue improving the article, but until this ends, I'm not willing to improve it, in case it gets deleted. Videomaniac29 (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Videomaniac29 (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

IMPORTANT...READ: I have changed my mind, and started improving the article. I have added a lot more sources, and a lot more content. There is absolutely no way this article breaches Wikipedia's Notability Guidlines. I am therefore asking if this discussion could be closed, and the article returned to normal. Videomaniac29 (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to videomaniac29's cleanup and research efforts.   Th e S te ve   04:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient information for a keep. NealeFamily (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although it's true that the initial article had problems, the sources that have been provided since then demonstrate that the subject does meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.-- xanchester  (t)  03:09, 24 October 2012 (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.