Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stockland Rockhampton

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The result was withdrawn nomination (see nominator comment at the bottom). — Rudget _{Contributions} 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stockland Rockhampton[edit]

Shopping centre. Unsourced; no claim to notability given. Fails WP:N. Nehwyn (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IMO this one does pass the test of notability (okay, it's not the West Edmonton Mall), but I would delete the list of tenants. Too many redlinks. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain where are the multiple independent sources that would allow this article to pass notability? --Nehwyn (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for multiple, but you can look at this[1], and several hotels that boast about their proximity to the mall, which, incidentally, is located quite close to downtown. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotels I would disregard, but the one source you brought up is interesting. I don't think it's enough to justify a separate article, but we may take out the long list of outlets and just focus on the shopping centre itself, and integrate the result in the relevant list of shopping centres. --Nehwyn (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Retailing, an industry publication, extensively covers this shopping centre and its redevelopments and acquisitions over the years. Dun & Bradstreet reports explicitly cover and detail it. That's two. There are others - it won a major international design award in 1996 and a regional one in 2004 (for which it was a runner-up in 1999). I must add I knew nothing about this centre until today, everything I've added is basically from published sources via Factiva. Orderinchaos 04:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claim to notability seems to be its size - not encyclopedic notability. It seems highly unlikely that anyone is going to come to wikipedia to learn about this. Anarchia (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe not in North America, but we could ask Australian editors. Would you delete the article on Centre Laval? --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is the biggest shopping centre in Rockhampton, Queensland. However, there are two mentions in Google News Archives one of which is a trivial mention [2]. It doesn't warrant an individual article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In need of a shopping centre rescue squad (refer to Thewinchester's and my edits to Stockland Glendale in recent days) but is notable from what I can see. The lack of news mentions would probably relate to it having held a previous name (I'm personally not a fan of shopping centres renaming themselves every few years after their current owners) Orderinchaos 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have rewritten article somewhat - not my best effort but it at least looks like a shopping centre instead of an ad now. Orderinchaos 03:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winning 2 awards and being runner up lend to WP:N and its well sourced to boot. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the nominator the article was woeful and lacked most of its current content before this morning, containing simply some glib statements and a long, long list of stores pasted from the corporate website. Sadly this happens a lot with shopping centre articles, usually takes an AfD for someone like me or Thewinchester or one of the others to notice them and fix them up. Orderinchaos 14:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - I think the deletion process has brought forth sufficient evidence for the subject of this article to be considered notable. Good job everyone. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[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.