Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westgate City Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 06:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Westgate City Center

Westgate City Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced article about this mall, about which there appears to be nothing special, and seems to fail WP:N. stub since Sept 06. Wikipedia is not a directory of shopping malls Ohconfucius 01:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keepStrong Keep. Apparently the mall's still only partially built. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 02:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Changing to strong keep per Arkyan. Personally, per the sources I've found, I can't make heads or tails of this development -- too many buzzwords in the descriptions. However, the wealth of articles I've found seems to suggest a high level of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 20:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ~ G1ggy! Reply 05:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There was a policy based on the size of the mall (see WP:MALL) but it has been rejected due to lack of consensus. Now a road was popular enough that if it meant something to at least 50,000 people it was notable. But still, I don't see the article establishing any notibility. Its just a mall, there are thousands and thousands of them, whats so special about this one?--Dacium 07:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Has no one done their homework? Westgate is a massive entertainment/retail/residential project that has rapidly become a hub of activity for the western Phoenix metro area. Even the most casual search of Google will turn up a plethora of news articles relating to the center. As for calling it a "mall" that is a terrible misconception, as when complete it will be a massive complex with over 6.5 million square feet of retail space alone. I'm amazed to find the article here in such poor shape, and I will do the work to bring it up to par when I have time (later today) but to satisfy the point of notability this link [1] is a Google search restricted ONLY to the Arizona Republic newspaper website and far and away proves that it is notable. Arkyan • (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is obvious to me that this is notable based on the media coverage. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep , assuming Arkyan does as he plans. The presence of the athletic complexes should imply that there are articles about the center to be located. DGG 00:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep. I live in the Phoenix area. This center has so much notability to it (i.e. the sports arenas, the fact that this has probably become THE heart of Glendale (besides its downtown), and its importance to Arizona sports. The stadium nearby will host the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl! Do you understand why now this deserves to stay? TRKtv (daaaaah!) 01:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment : I had some important matters that took up my time today and I couldn't get to this article. I intend to work on it tomorrow, just wanted to let you all know so no one assumed I abandoned the plan :) Arkyan • (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I could not find any info on the gross leasable area, especially the 6.5 million square foot claim made above. That could aid in making a decision to keep or delete. Edison 04:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - first batch of work done to the article, plan to do more in the nearish future. I also plan to upload a photo or two as soon as the weather is cooperating enough to take some decent pictures. Arkyan • (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, so that's what this thing is. Thanks for your help Arkyan; I was horribly confused as to what the hell the City Center entailed. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten, current article demonstrates notability through multiple non-trivial third party references. RFerreira 06:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rewrite has article sourced by 3rd party reliable sources. --Oakshade 01:42, 8 May 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.