Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of distressed shopping malls


 * 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 Delete  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   15:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

List of distressed shopping malls
Since the last time this article was nominated for AfD here, we've forked out the malls that are verifiably defunct, and no longer operating as malls or closed outright here. This addressed the concerns brought up in the previous AfD nomination. This article now contains only "distressed" shopping malls still open to the public, which is far harder, if not impossible, to objectively verify than defunctness. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. What exactly does "distressed" mean? In any case, it seems unverifiable and probably unmaintainable. Grand  master  ka  10:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete since identifying them seems rather difficult.. and as above, 'distressed' is never even explained (I assume it means they are on their way to becoming defunct?). -- Mithent 11:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as the criteria for being on this list ("distressed"), is inherently non-encyclopedic. — Cuivi é  nen , Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 12:35 (UTC)
 * Weak delete It's a potentially interesting subject, but the content seemingly simply mirrors Deadmalls.com without adding anything to it from other sources. The parent article Dead mall really needs to be expanded commenting on the significance of the phenomenon before there are all the subarticles.  But perhaps there should be some sort of Centralized discussion about articles on malls on WP. Esquizombi 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment We did start WikiProject Dead malls to attempt to coordinate efforts regarding these articles about dead malls on Wikipedia. Basically sets up a basic structure for articles and some "talking points" for such malls.  Hopefully this will make things a wee bit easier in the future, as this does centralize some of the discussion.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this mirror of blog site deadmalls.com. Labelling a mall as 'distressed' is POV, and changing it from the original would make it original research, as it is up to someone's interpretation whether or not a mall is 'distressed'. And it's a silly name.  The only emotion malls feel is anger.     Proto    ||    type    14:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I like the list. However, I feel that it is of no use, isn't it listcruft? --Ter e nce Ong 15:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete all malls! &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  15:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. this could be a categofy, but as an article it is patent listcruft.  young  american  (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. It's interesting, but I don't see how we can label a mall distressed and still be NPOV. BryanG 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom, thanks to whom for straightening this out. -Will Beback 21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. There are reasonably objective criteria for a 'distressed' property most of which are unavailable to the general public.  There are a couple of malls that have defaulted on their mortgages.  Others have extremely low (less than 60%) occupancy.  Most of that information would take so much time to research that I doubt anyone has done it here.  I certainly can't fathom what criteria was used for inclusion here. Montco 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: "Distressed" is too vague. Even a specific meaning (say, vacancy rate), might or might not be notable with respect to the local economy.  And the one mall on the list that I can really make an informed opinion on is not distressed by any standard. Peter Grey 03:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 20:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd personally have to go with the delete side. I think there's a too-high degree of subjectivity involved, and a too-low degree of verifiability. Plus I just don't think it's that important, and while I may be wrong I don't think WP has ever established a consensus that all shopping malls are legitimately notable. For what it's worth, the only mall on here that I could speak to at all (Whitby Mall in Whitby, Ontario) is one that I don't think would merit an article even if it weren't on some people's subjective lists of "distressed" malls. Bottom line, this just doesn't strike me as being a particularly notable or encyclopedic list. Bearcat 02:47, 7 April 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.