Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essex Green Shopping Center

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essex Green Shopping Center[edit]

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

Non-notable shopping center Dough 48 72 23:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsourced and non-notable. Yoninah (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. It is unambiguous advertising, as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not spam, but no indicaton of notability. Probably would be speedy A7 if malls were included in that criterion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are articles on what the bulk of the article, the theatre, is about: Star Ledger, Another Star Ledger and there are various other generic things, regarding shops inside of it, some more about the theatre for some reason. - Theornamentalist (talk)
Delete as there is no indication of notablity. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stub about a non-notable local shopping center. The Star Ledger stories are not really about the shopping center, but rather, changes planned for its theater and others. Anyhow it's kind of hard to say the theater comprises the "bulk" of the article; it's two sentences out of three, but that's not very "bulk"y. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- hah.. instead of getting into a debate about the definition of the word bulk, other than the sentence about its location which I'm sure could referenced, the rest of the "article" could be properly referenced between those two articles. On the content, I would say delete, but on the fact that it does have reliable sources, I'd say extremely weak keep. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:29, 6 September 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.