Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Centro shopping centres in United States of America

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 JForget 00:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Centro shopping centres in United States of America[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely outdated, extremely large list. Almost none of these properties is notable enough for its own page; most of the blue links point to wrong pages. Almost every listing is an extremely small (under 10-15 stores) strip or in some cases, just a single store. If more than just a tiny number were enclosed malls/lifestyle centers/power centers, then I could see a possible argument for keeping. But these lists are just way too redlinky, way too indiscriminate (apparently they own a Kroger in Alabama), and way too unlikely to spawn potential articles. This company does own a few actual enclosed shopping malls, so those could probably be listed on the main article. Otherwise, delete. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their website does have a property list, but I still think that this is not an appropriate topic for a list given my other concerns. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being of inadequate significance. This is the sort of list that belongs on the company website, not an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 10 May 2010 (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.