Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SM City Bacoor


 * 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   no consensus. v/r - TP 01:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

SM City Bacoor

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A shopping mall in Philippines that fails WP:N. Unable to find independent WP:RS with no claims of notability as internet search turned up directory type listings and websites of shops within the mall. It was De-PRODed in 2008 with the claims that it was large. Michaela den (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  —Michaela den (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Michaela den (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @nom, a google search for exact words "SM City Bacoor" produces 165,000 results, are you telling the community that you've checked them ALL and found none, or that you checked a few and then came to the conclusion there were none and nominated this for deletion based on your incomplete search? I find the former hard to believe and I find the latter disingenuous. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am more than happy for you to prove me wrong. If independent reliable soures can be found please let the AfD know and add them to the article.--Michaela den (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per nom and WP:NOT DIRECTORY. All other SM Supermalls except the flagship ones should be deleted as well.Rxlxm (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep until we have a uniform policy on notability of shopping centers otherwise the US-bias, where nearly any shopping mall will have easily findable sufficient coverage in local media to establish notability quickly, whereas such notability-establishing sources no doubt exist for these places as well, it's just that they haven't been found (and are less likely to be easily found). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a uniform policy on shopping centers, it's found at WP:GNG. I think you mean English language-bias and developed world-bias, rather than US-bias, but that's not a card you can play in AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mr. Hoyle. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because you too have checked the 165,000 references?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Article needs a lot of work, though, but I dunno the notability criteria for shopping malls, but if SM Mall of Asia exists, so should this one. – H T  D  14:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: simply stating that it has lots of internet hits, per WP:GNUM, and there are other articles, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, does not provide an argument on how it passes the notability test, per WP:N, to decide whether a topic should be a standalone article. If there are no independent reliable soures on the topic, then it should not have a separate article.--Michaela den (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2011 (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.