Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States shopping malls by state


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash talk 23:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

List of United States shopping malls by state
List of unencyclopedic lists (and unencyclopedic lists). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. Also included are the lists of shopping malls in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont, Delete all. Fightindaman 23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all - these would work better as a categories. &mdash; Stevie is the man!  Talk 23:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just a quick note, even if you like the idea of the list, there already exists a list of notable shopping malls in the US by state at List of shopping malls in the United States. Fightindaman 23:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fightindaman and Stevietheman. Nothing against shopping malls being here, but categories and the list that was already there are enough to organize them.  --Allen 00:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Quite indiscriminate. List of shopping malls in the United States serves its purpose very well, by itself. -- Krash (Talk) 00:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with List of shopping malls in the United States. Kappa 00:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a list of lists. Please see Listcruft. Stifle 00:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete profoundly useless information. D e nni &#9775;  02:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. I'm biased since I created most of these. However, User:Coolcaesar has been deleting all malls that he doesn't think are notable enough (which, IMO, borders on ownership) from List of shopping malls in the United States, over several objections. Until all these malls have articles, the lists should stay, however, they can be merged if there is a guarantee they will not be deleted. Kirjtc2 02:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we delete these lists, then we might as well delete a whole bunch of other lists that are just as "unencyclopedic." These do have encyclopedic value. bob rulz 06:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, since these lists can handle redlinks when categories cannot. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: But do we really need lists of non-notable red links? If the mall is notable then the list I mentioned above can handle it before it's written. Fightindaman 17:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Fightindaman's comment just preceeding. Mallocks 20:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: I think it is more effective to convince Coolcaesar of the growing consensus that the requirements for "notability" be broadened than to create a fork that has tons of red links. In my opinion, notability does not have to be national or statewide, but can also be in a regional or metropolitan sense, as well as being historically notable due to past activity on the site. I am adding some malls in the California section, asserting their notability, in hopes that I can reach a consensus that these malls are indeed notable. Calwatch 04:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this pointless list. Arbusto 09:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Has little or no value. No Guru 19:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; no reason to delete. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 01:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:Actually, a reason was given for deletion. A reason was also presented as for why they should be kept.  Perhaps instead of simply saying "no reason" you could address one of the reasons presented for either side. Fightindaman 06:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons I have already stated at Talk:List of shopping malls and Talk:List of shopping malls in the United States.--Coolcaesar 06:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Replace with category. If all these red links do become articles, we can add them to the category. A list is unencyclopedic. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag_of_Texas.svg|30px]] 10:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this list is useful because it points out some missing articles. --Snargle 21:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per bob rulz's first sentence. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I point to WP:CORP, which gives an example of a list of Wal-Marts in Germany as being informative enough for an article (not that there is one on here). A list of malls in my opinion is more valuable than a list of Wal-Marts, because malls are important gathering places and cultural icons in their communities, as opposed to a bland generic Wal-Mart. A category wouldn't suffice because not all major malls have articles yet. I would have no problems with a merge though. Kirjtc2 02:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. List shows us what we got and what we need to do. No reason to get rid of it that I can see. -- JJay 02:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Also create a category for it as categories and lists do different jobs Jcuk 22:16, 12 March 2006 (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.