Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls converted to outdoor format (2nd nomination)


 * 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 unsourced, vague criteria --Stephen 03:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

List of shopping malls converted to outdoor format
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has a number of problems. First of all, what makes a shopping mall "converted to outdoor format" and what constitutes an entirely new shopping center? Some of these facilities are complete demolitions, while others appear to retain former structure. I've found nothing, and it's likely that this key element is unverifiable. Additionally, the vast majority of these shopping facilities are non-notable, and likely never will be considered notable, i.e. we will have a sea of redlinks forever. This seems to indicate to me "listcruft". Therefore I consider this article somewhat beyond remediation, and advise its deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The criteria are very vague -- what if it began its life as an outdoor mall and was converted to big box? Does that count? And what about cases where the mall building was simply gutted for big box, instead of a demo/rebuild? Et cetera. I agree with the nom that this is listcruft, and is very likely to remain a sea of mostly red links. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely unsourced and no indication why a shopping mall converted to outdoor format is notable while a shopping mall not converted to outdoor format presumably is not. eaolson (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above deletes. There is no need for a list of converted malls. Undeath (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utter mallcruft. There's no significance here. If there's somewhere that "de-malling" is discussed, a few examples (chosen from bluelinks, preferably) will suffice. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, really slippery criteria for inclusion, as stated in the nom. Not really suitable as a list.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Keep - One could try to sharpen definitions, but the key questions: (1) is the list factually correct and verifiable, (2) is it of interest. (1) It is certainly verifiable (sources could be required, if no wikipedia article exists), but it is in principle verifiable. Lack of sources does not warrant deletion, it warrants requesting sources. (2) Is it of interest? - Well I am interested, as were all the contributors. The phenomenon of "demalling" is significant, and there is in general interest in dead technologies and retrenchment from an historical perspective. The fact that some members of a list are non-notable does not make the list as a whole non-notable. dml (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You've outlined the problem quite well - what makes a shopping center "converted" to an outdoor format? That's what is the problem.  The main premise of this list is unclear, and has not yet been verified with a reliable source.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep One of Wikipedia's strengths is coverage on issues and trends like this that aren't picked up by anyone except trade publications. Considering the normal criteria for keeping lists on Wikipedia, this list certainly contributes information that Wikipedia would lose if this article gets deleted. Dgf32 (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Again, so far as I know, there's not an article about "outdoor format" malls, which is odd, because it's a trend in the industry. I can see where there are objections to this orphaned list.  But I honestly don't understand what the problem is with the definition.  There was a mall that took up several acres at a particular location, and they took off the roof, so that now the same acres house what resembles a town's business district.  That's it.  I disagree with the idea that it's not notable; as you might imagine, it's a pretty expensive bit of remodeling and it's a major marketing decision.  About the question of what do you do about an outdoor mall that became an indoor mall and now it's an outdoor mall again, "outdoor" malls are a relatively new concept.  Mandsford (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Not all that new a concept. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting (and I appreciate the reference). Still, there's a trend toward this type of design, and it's significant that a lot of these places are making that "go out, or go out of business" choice.  I'm still surprised that there doesn't seem to be any general article about this change in marketing strategy-- I read one article in Newsweek last year, and no doubt, it's been written up in business magzines before then.  Usually, this type of list is a spinoff of a parent article.  Mandsford (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's another problem - there is no parent article. My problem is primarily with the list.  The concept is ripe to be discussed in shopping mall, and one could certainly find reliable sources to support the trend of opening up enclosed shopping centers or replacing enclosed shopping centers with more open styles.  However, for purposes of the list, any way of qualifying it for purposes of inclusion in the list would likely be original research.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Im sorry, but voting in, closing and renominating strays a little to close to an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. "it appears that the former article is going to be deleted, so delete this one as well " (from the first AfD) is basing this Articles deletion upon its apparent lack of a 'Parent' Article, and that would be cause to erase half of WP. "the vast majority of these shopping facilities are non-notable, and likely never will be considered notable" is pure crystalballery. All other Nom issues are correctable by editing. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  04:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As noted it has no sources at all, list inclusion criteria are imprecise, and there's no evidence that this is a useful way to categorize malls—no evidence of any reliable sources that make this distinction, so WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Quale (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any notable malls can be split off into their own articles. It's also unsourced, which also isn't good. Also, how is this usable on Wikipedia? Most lists on Wikipedia (e.g, lists of episodes for a television series) are done to combine several articles into one. I don't see any use like that for this list. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:53, 29 February 2008 (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.