Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baazar Kolkata

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baazar Kolkata

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

Claims to be the largest mall in its area of India, but I can't find any sources to verify that. Currently the article is a mess, most sources are just directory listings. The award it won is too obscure to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm baffled. Ten minutes of clicking on links and things that look like links but aren't, and the only thing I've managed to determine for certain about this place is that it exists. Delete? I guess? --Ashenai (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with assessment above. -- . Shlok _{talk .} 12:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion is not the answer to poor articles. Cleanup is. Sources can be found such as India Retailing AusLondonder (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete searches on News, Newspapers turned up nothing to show this retailer meets either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, mosly pr pieces (and few of those), and brief mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 7 September 2015 (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.