Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SM Marketmall Dasmariñas

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. Lenticel ^(talk) 08:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SM Marketmall Dasmariñas[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Insufficient sources. Has been redirected to SM Department Store article but some IPs and users removes the redirect. Also, it appears questionable that every SM mall or supermarket proposed or built get its own article. GrayFullbuster (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well individual malls are normally not notable; plus, I couldn't find any reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. No independent sources at all. (Although it is not in itself a reason to delete, it is worth noting that all the substantial editing of the article has been done by a number of single purpose or largely single purpose IPs from two ISPs, both of them in the same city as the company that owns the mall, together with a largely single purpose account editing almost exclusively articles relating to that company. Early versions of the article were unambiguous spam, and although the current version is more neutral, all appearances suggest that it exists as part of the business's publicity campaign.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there actually is a claim to notability for this perticular property. It is the first to use a "public market partnership", wherein the bottom floor is not actually SM Prime's. see [1] (although from sm's website, it is extracted from a newspaper). Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:19, 8 January 2012 (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.