Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Glenfield

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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westfield Glenfield

Westfield Glenfield (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article about a New Zealand shopping mall, with no reliable references or indication of notability. Does not pass WP:CORP. Previous attempts at merge were unsuccessful [1]. --Elonka 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Grutness...wha? 22:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Large, perfectly notable shopping centre. Rebecca 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I see no reliable sources. Or any, for that matter. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Lack of sources is not, nor has ever been, a deletion criterion where there is no suggestion of a hoax. Rebecca 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If the sources do not EXIST, then yes, it is, and always has been. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Then it would be a hoax. It is bleedingly obvious, however, that this is not the case, as a Google or Factiva search could provide sources in an instant. Rebecca 00:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Rather interesting, then, that if it is so easy, it has not yet been actually done. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It hasn't been done for this article as it hasn't for what, 75% of the articles on Wikipedia? That still isn't grounds to delete this article, as it would not be for the rest of the unreferenced articles on Wikipedia. Rebecca 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, I just tried, and couldn't do it. Maybe you should, to show me it's possible? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • What are you asking for sources for, precisely? It is absurd to have the highest referencing standards on Wikipedia applied solely to shopping centres because of deletionists making a point - this would be far more useful applied to living persons. Rebecca 01:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Two non-trivial sources, trivial being defined as "it's on this map" and the like. No blogs/forums/wikis please. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Westfield+Glenfield -Wikipedia = about 100,000 ghits ([2]). Far fewer for "Westfield Glenfield" -Wikipedia, but that's because it's often referred to by names like "Westfield Shoppingtown Glenfield" or "Westfield Mall Glenfield". Grutness...wha? 06:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No claim of notability wich is verifiable with independent reliable sources. Edison 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete malls are not inherently notable. Eluchil404 08:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: FYI, there is a misplaced keep vote sitting on the article's talk page. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I live in Auckland, on the North Shore - the mall does have a history that's more interesting that most malls'. I know that's not reflected in the article at the moment, but I think it could become a nice, interesting article in time. And generally, I don't think it's trivial enough to delete (what I consider the opposite of thinking it's not notable enough to keep). Furthermore, I think WP:RS can be very well met for this article. It isn't hard, particularly when WP:RS only warns of keeping a NPOV when relying on corporate sources (it doesn't discount them altogether). Since some people are particularly sceptical of this I'll be explicit: [3] is acceptable as a RS, if we watch for NPOV, and no other sources are available (which they are). --Dom 02:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. although perhaps a merger in a more general article about Westfield i'd consider acceptable. Mathmo ^Talk 16:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

nah, has to be a keep not merge. looked at the parent company article. no way can it be included anymore than it is already. and as such rather than considering merger i'm upgrading to a strong keep (already is a link to this page from westfield, along with all other ones that are owned) Mathmo ^Talk

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.