Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rouse Properties


 * 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   Keep. The consensus below is that the company is notable and should receive coverage on Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Rouse Properties

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Current references are to the company's own website. I can find a few g-news hits: one is a writeup in a reliable investment blog, but I don't think this individually asserts notability. The rest of the dozen or so g-news hits are about equally split between press releases and trivial mentions when the real subject is a mall that the subject company owns. I'm just not finding enough independent, non-trivial coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livitup (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 February 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Keep, notable as a division of General Growth Properties and standalone notability of properties (e.g. Southland Center, Lansing Mall). That source asserts notability just fine. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Further sources: this, this Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This business owns and manages a number of shopping malls, though of course they have to put it more grandly than that: It is amongst the largest mall owners in the United States with a geographically diversified portfolio that spans the United States.  A blog (not usually a reliable source) that suggests that the business might be undervalued is not a witness to significant effects on history, technology, or culture.  And, frankly, owning a number of shopping malls probably doesn't get past minimal significance either. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep on the ground that an appropriate coverage of major business is notable. A business that manages a number of notable properties is, looked at rationally, somewhat likely to me more notable than they are--and it would provide a place for merging/redirecting malls it owns that aren't notable. Inherited notability has nothing to do with this--that refers to a minor derived notability, something that owns many notable things anything is not derived or subsidiary to it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have to agree with DGG; a company which owns a large number of notable malls is likely to be notable. There was a POV issue, but I've started to fix that, and will have a look for some more reliable sources. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have found two reliable references - one from MarketWatch and once from Seeking Alpha - and added them to the article. That should more than satisfy the notability criteria. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:05, 11 February 2012 (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.