Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Patricio 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. In the end, sources allegedly proving WP:GNG were found. The question is whether they are reliable enough. For that point, the opinions split 5:2, which is above the standard consensus threshold. Therefore I close this nomination as keep, and not as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

San Patricio Plaza

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:N concern. (looks pretty promotional too) [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 19:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Enclosed malls are notable enough for articles.  Dough 48  72  01:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On what basis? There are no reliable sources I could find that establish notability. a mall or other structure is not by definition notable in and of itself. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 03:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep A decades old mall with well over 100 stores is very likely to be notable. I see many Spanish language sources in Google News Archives. Though a lot of them are brief, they add up to significant coverage. I found two English language sources behind pay walls. One describes a major remodel about ten years ago, and the other describes a fire about 40 years ago. Seems notable to me.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw a bunch of sources, but on further investigation it looks like most? all? of them are ads. If you want to pull out the ones that qualify as RS, be my guest. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 05:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't read Spanish fluently, but many of the items I saw in my Google News Archive search appeared to be newspaper articles not paid ads. I used Google Translate to get a better idea. There are hundreds listed, so if even 10% have any validity, that amounts to notability in my opinion.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Any plans to add them to this article, which otherwise completely lacks any RS? -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 06:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lack of reliable sources does not merit deletion. That's a content issue. Perhaps you should add the reliable sources yourself? Here, let me help you out:      Those are all considered reliable sources. If you need help with translations you can use Google Translate. Good luck buddy! &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Ridiculous assessment by nominator. Subject meets all requirements established by WP:GNG. Lack of reliable sources or the way the content is presented does not merit deletion: that's simply a content issue. Reliable sources can be found by performing a simple search on El Nuevo Día, Primera Hora, Caribbean Business, NotiCel, El Vocero, and News Is My Business which are all considered reliable sources by Wikipedia as well as being local newspapers in Puerto Rico. Per WP:AGF, nominator's good intention is duly noted, but his assessment is quite off. Nominator is encouraged to add the reliable sources himself if he is so preoccupied about such matters per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM by using the following Google searches:      &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep For better or worse, in our days shopping malls constitute a notable factor in the social life of a place, but especially so in a village or in a municipality of around 100.000, like Guaynabo. And of course, most top results about them are bound to be full of adds, so our concern should be on content, not deletion. Hoverfish Talk 15:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom non-notable local mall. All hits are either ads for the mall, ads for stores at the mall, or ads about some type of activity at the mall.  Nothing is written about the mall itself.  Caffeyw (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Article from El Nuevo Día which is not an ad nor an annoucement: written by a journalist, namely Marian Díaz, which covers the mall itself and its activities. Another one from El Vocero covering the mall and written by another journalist, Carlos Antonio Otero: . Same thing with  all from independent reliable sources and written by journalists rather than by the mall's public relations department. Seriously, why don't you focus your energy on improving the article instead of stating false accusations? &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by nominator even with the coverage noted by Ahnoneemoos, assuming it's RS, I am not sure it passes WP:CORP, the relevant standard (since there is no WP:NMALL, though there was an attempt at creating one.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UseTheCommandLine (talk • contribs) 05:35, August 27, 2013‎
 * Per WP:CORP: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." We have provided independent secondary sources which have covered Plaza Carolina significantly. Once again, you are advised to focus your energy on improving the article rather than trying to get it deleted. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I added two ext links from independent sources in the article and in the talk page I linked to several searches with thousands of results Puerto Rican newspapers. Hoverfish Talk 15:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I was not ready to comment on this when the nomination first opened up, given the dubious "short-and-sweet" style of the nomination. However, now I have to agree with the arguments opposing the nomination for a delete since the Notability arguments presented since adequately satisfy WP:N. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
 * 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.