Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rushden Lakes shopping centre

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rushden Lakes shopping centre[edit]

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

Non-notable center reddogsix (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major development which is anticipated to have five million visitors a year.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rushden+lakes&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCv4ajiovVAhVsKsAKHZqFBlwQ_AUICygC&biw=1366&bih=638 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quackquack (talk • contribs) 10:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even major developments that are anticipated to be really big need non-trivial, non-routine coverage by multiple independent reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. A raw Google search dump is not proof of coverage. In this case, the overwhelming majority of the hits come from one newspaper (one source for Wikipedia's purposes). Independent non-routine citations in the article are currently limited to that one independent sources. The WP:CORPDEPTH guidance is even stricter than GNG about what constitutes significant, non-routine coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NCORP. Ajf773 (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2017 (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.