Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Promenade at Coconut Creek


 * 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   no consensus. –MuZemike 23:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Promenade at Coconut Creek

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable, tagged for over a year. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Apparent lack of coverage in reliable sources. There is coverage present in reliable sources, but it is of routine and insignificant nature. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  06:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete just a shopping center. Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No sign of notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Smallish (less than regional sized) shopping center with no apparent claim to fame to justify an article. Edison (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete - makes me with there was a Floripedia for the little things like this, but a Wikipedia topic this ain't. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No need for it. I don't know why I really started this thing, must have thought it would grow in time. ~  Jedi94  (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as I was able to add reliable third-party sourcing from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Miami Herald, Nation's Restaurant News, and South Florida Business Journal plus, according to an article in the Palm Beach Post, the "Promenade at Coconut Creek mixed-use development was featured in Construction Today magazine in April of 2009." I suggest any editors review their !votes in light of these additions. - Dravecky (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * mmm, let's see. Miami Herald: "grand opening this weekend". SF business journal: a "top office lease deal". SunSentinel "mall to open". That isn't notability, that's snoozeworthiness factor 10. Sorry. It's still a Delete Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree; these are routine mentions typical pf pretty much any development. Mangoe (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the Nation's Restaurant News is beyond the routine and I was unaware that there was an "exciting" threshold to go along with verifiability and notability. I'd be interested to read that new guideline. - Dravecky (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just good old Notability, WP:N that's all, which I suggest it fails. If opening a building counts as establishing notability, every public building is notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I'm still not 100% sure if this should be kept, even with the added references, but I'm convinced it shouldn't be deleted, which is enough. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources and content just make it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the sourcing found by Dravecky is just enough to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2011 (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.