Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Plaza


 * 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. -Docg 01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Century Plaza

 * — (View AfD)

Article was speedily deleted per WP:CSD G11 and is now undeleted by DavidLevinson (talk • contribs), with the summary "not spam". CSD G11 covers "pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic", and not spam per se. No non-trivial reporting found on Google news or Google news archive. Factiva not checked. Prior deletion and undeletion not relevant, but subject may not meet encyclopedic standards of notability per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is not spam, as the language is not promotional and there is absolutely no evidence of any commercial intent in its posting. It is also a potentially interesting stub on a shopping centre which appears as if it could make for a useful topic. It does need to be referenced, but since none of this content is actually contested in the least, this is grounds for tagging as unreferenced, not deletion. Rebecca 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Promotional language" isn't a requirement for spam, and "maybe someday could be an article, hopefully" is a thin reed to hang a "keep" vote on. --Calton | Talk 00:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete maybe not spam, but it is a directory entry. Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Directory entry. No notability asserted. -- Charlene 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a shopping mall. And...? --Calton | Talk 00:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivia. The exact size and shops found there is not encyclopedic information, and that's pretty much all that's there.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't assert encyclopedic notability . Bwithh 03:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think this shopping mall is notable enough for its own article. Quack 688 10:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per original nom. WMMartin 17:39, 2 January 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.