Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of out-of-town shopping centres in the United Kingdom


 * 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 Mandsford 02:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

List of out-of-town shopping centres in the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

These kinds of lists are unmaintainable and prone to OR. Also Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Divebomb is not British 19:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

See also:
 * Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Bahrain (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Malaysia (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Maryland (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Michigan (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Romania
 * Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Thailand (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United Arab Emirates
 * Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United States (6th nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United Arab Emirates
 * Articles for deletion/List of shopping centres in Norway

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per these lists are prone to OR and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:IINFO. "Out-of-town" shopping centres in the United Kingdom? Wouldn't that mean any shopping centre not in the United Kingdom? Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly defined list of a notable topic. EVERY article has the potential to be unmaintainable and prone to OR - AfD is not for cleanup.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The tagging is somewhat amusing. How many experts on U.K. out-of-town shopping centres are there in the world, do you think? Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Expert-subject tag, because it's not an "expert" topic. And I've removed Unreferenced too, because the references are in all of the individual articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. (Adding same comment to all articles above). I've read the arguments for deletion, for this and all the other articles listed above, and I don't see any valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Open to OR? All articles are, and if there is any actual OR, we should improve or remove it rather than delete the article. Unencyclopedic? See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Unmaintainable? Maybe it will never be completely up to date, but no article will ever be - and a number of these articles appear to be getting updated fairly regularly. Unreferenced? If the individual entries are bluelinked, then their own articles will have references, so those don't necessarily need additional references in the list article (and if you think they do, just copy one across). Genuinely unreferenced entries should be referenced if possible, or marked cn and given some time before possibly being removed. But this is all cleanup, and that's not what AfD is for - you don't delete articles just because some content is unreferenced. Tourist guide? There's nothing "tourist guide" about any of them - "tourist guide" refers to prices, recommendations, directions, promotional wording, etc. These are just geographic-based lists, which are applicable to anyone rather than specifically tourists, and if we deleted everything that's geographic we'd have nothing left - everything is somewhere. Some are too short to be needed as a list and a category will suffice? Well, all lists start off short - and there are distinct advantages and disadvantages of both lists and categories, and previous discussions have always failed to gain a consensus of one over the other. At least some of these articles are lists of things that are sufficiently notable to have their own articles, and they just provide a collection of links to them - and that's one of the things that list articles are for, as a complement to categories. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: unmaintainable WP:IINFO, best handled as categories. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Brilliant logic - how would the category be any less maintainable than an article?  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (i) I think you meant "any more maintainable" (ii) it is more maintainable because there are programs in place to get articles added to categories (e.g. bots adding uncategorized to articles without categories), but not to get them added to lists (ii) but thanks for calling my logic "brilliant" -- I'll WP:AGF and ssume you weren't being sarcastic. :) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, my "delete" !vote was only for the United Kingdom article (the rest of the articles weren't bundled here at that time). Speaking of that, though, even though all these other articles were created by the same editor, I don't think they qualify here because they do have potential to become better articles, whereas the subject of the "original" article is too vague. Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge (and redirect) with either (or both) of List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom or List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom by size. I'm thinking preferably all three should merge into a single article entitled List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom which should only contain centres over an agreed size.  Most of the centres listed in List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom clearly aren't notable, and a single huge (but incomplete) list really isn't much use to anyone. The ones that are notable in the nominated article and List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom are mentioned in List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom by size.   A further problem is defining what an "Out-of-town" actually is. For example, Westfield London in not in a typical "town/city centre" environment that would apply to something like Manchester Arndale.  However, it isn't on the very edge of city or conurbation as with the Trafford Centre. Pit-yacker (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge if really, really, really needed. Everyone of these is basically out of town for someone. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep all as per WP:AOAL. Aeonx (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The present list is the opposite of INDISCRIMINATE--essentially every article on it has a Wikipedia article, and most of the non-notable US malls in Wikipedia have been deleted some time ago--I helped get the standards tightened for that--this is an area where I am firmly selective, not inclusive. It's time to explicitly state what I would think obvious: if subjects are notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles, a list of them is not indiscriminate——notability is the way we discriminate. Out-of-town is one reasonable approach to organize the non-urban material--it complements the organization by county/region. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 5 December 2010 (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.