Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centennial Mall

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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 04:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centennial Mall

Centennial Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No assertion of notability. Nothing asserting notability in Google news archives. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• A shopping mall that has been torn down? Speedy Delete--Gavin Collins 15:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 15:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Another mall that's appears not to be notable. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Just because the article is undeveloped is no reason to delete an article about a historically and culturally significant building.68.144.31.71 02:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)— 68.144.31.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The assertion of covering a centenial anniversary would be enough to keep the article. However, it has no references or citations to back up that claim. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no notability sourced or asserted. TerriersFan 03:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No claim to notabilty whatsoever.--Victor falk 15:44, 1 October 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.