Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nampa Gateway Center

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeper76 (talk • contribs) 18:32,4 Feb, 2008

Nampa Gateway Center[edit]

This one is kind of tricky... sure, there are a few sources out there, but except for some blurbs on the mall's JCPenney store, I see nothing dated later than 2006. The only other sources I could find were press releases listing possible future tenants and other speculative information. So far, this is about as complete as the article can get. Also, the lack of sources after 2006 is actually somewhat puzzling... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found at least two sources about the now completed center from 2008 [1][2] --Oakshade (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable outdoor shopping center. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Lack of sources isn't really surprising in this case. When a construction is planned, there is a flurry of news. During construction, things are usually quiet (if all is going well that is). Upon opening the news reports begin again. As the article states, "Completion is estimated by Spring of 2008". If it is accepted that it's role in revitalization lends notability, I propose we let this one ride and see what happens by middle of summer? At that time we can give it a procedural AfD to determing its fate. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the size. I share the concerns raised by Ten Pound Hammer. Maybe tag with an expand or leave it as a future project. I suspect that once the opening gets closer, there will be more sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. The subject doesn't actually exist yet, and is only a planned construction; and it doesn't seem a particularly notable one at the moment, judging by how little coverage it's received. If more sources are written about it as it nears completion, then it can be re-created, but we don't need this article just yet. Terraxos (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't exist? Here are two stories about it from the Idaho Press-Tribune and the Idaho Statesman regarding its current existence [3][4].

Keep - As mentioned above, not only does it exist, (contrary to "delete" voters above), it's the subject of secondary independent sources, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY. Being part of Nampa's revitalization is further evidence of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC) [5][6][reply]

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.