Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Malaysia (3rd 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. T. Canens (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

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

These kinds of lists are unmaintainable and unencyclopedic. Deleted as a result of a 2007 AFD, recreated, and somehow survived another AFD in 2008. --Divebomb is not British 19:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC) as well Divebomb is not British 20:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, please see the following AFDs
 * Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Bahrain (2nd 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 centres in Australia
 * Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United States (6th nomination)]

Also...
 * Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United Arab Emirates
 * 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) 11:09, 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 20:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 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) 23:38, 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. Lists and categories go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:22, 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) 15:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I understand your argument Boing, but  this is just a totally  unreferenced mess of red links that is going to  spawn an equal number of  unreferenced one-line stubs sooner or later. This is counter productive to encyclopedia building.--Kudpung (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I do accept that this one is particularly poor. But I think that's an argument for improvement rather than deletion - there seem to be decent amount of bluelinked entries to me. I would have thought a better approach would be to remove the red links (thus reducing the chance of someone making lots of stubs) and look for some sources - any unverifiable entries can be removed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep in order to help develop the articles. In a part of the world we find difficult to work with, a list with a good many red links like this can be justified. (fwiw, I'm a deletionist in term of shopping malls; most of my arguments for deletion of individual malls have been delete, and I've tried to help get consensus for tighter guidelines.)  Note that I am not giving the same comment for all the lists, but evaluating each one of them & saying what applies.    DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 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.