Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Bahrain (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   no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 17:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

List of shopping malls in Bahrain
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Another unmaintainable and unencyclopedic list with no sources. --Divebomb is not British 19:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC) as well Divebomb is not British 20:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, please see the following AFDs
 * Articles for deletion/List of shopping centres in Australia
 * 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)]

Also...
 * Articles for deletion/List of shopping centres in Norway
 * Articles for deletion/List of out-of-town shopping centres in the United Kingdom

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC) "the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc."
 * Delete per these lists are prone to OR and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 19:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Only a few entries in the list are notable enough for inclusion, and the categories are sufficient in this case. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:37, 26 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) 10:21, 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) 13:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -

- WP:NOTGUIDE

NotARealWord (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:24, 4 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) 06:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep n order to help develop the articles. In a part of the world we find very difficult to work with, a list with a considerable number of redlinked malls or redlinks like this can be justified; I expect some will be found non-notable and deleted--& fwiw, most of my opinions at AfD for individual malls have been delete. I think   NOT INDISCRIMINATE is an important requirement to be an encyclopedia rather than a mere web directory. But this list when developed will not be indiscriminate. (Recognizing that this grouped nomination covers articles of a very different nature, I'm checking each one and writing what is appropriate for the specific case.)   DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)  (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.