Deletion of List of Bloomingdale's locations

Comment: Per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: per . Verifiable stores that are significant milestones/highlights in the chain's history or are notable landmarks belong in the main Bloomingdale's article. This list is a directory
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: This is only in relation to lists in general on any article, whether they be department stores or not. First, to be perfectly clear, within an article  does not apply. Notability only applies to whether there should be a freestanding article. Second, just being a list does not mean it fails OT. As OTDIR points out, some lists are acceptable. As I said http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMeier_%26_Frank&diff=246246230&oldid=196964274 here regarding lists of stores in a department store article (an article I rarely edit and have provided little content to), it does not fail OTDIR. It certainly fails , but so does the entire article and I would venture at least 50% of Wikipedia in general. SO, if it is unsourced, then tag it. On a side note I disagree that much of these lists could not be sourced, as most newspapers are available on microfilm for old editions which would include openings/closings if people remember that most of the world's information is not available online and that it is not only acceptable but really preferred to use printed sources, which may not be available online (and I would expect more newspapers to become available online much as the NYT's entire collection and I believe Time magazine are now). Thus, if citations are not added, then after the usual amount of time we give, then remove the unsourced part. But, don't discriminate, tag all the unsourced bits and remove all the outstanding unsourced bits
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOT||WP:NOTDIR||WP:NOTDIR||WP:V)