Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United States (6th 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Unmaintainable and unencyclopedic list lacking in sourcing. Classic example of WP:LISTCRUFT right there. --Divebomb is not British 19:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC) as well Divebomb is not British 20:08, 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 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 centres in Australia

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) 11:12, 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 19:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Why should we have a list of every single mall in the U.S? NotARealWord (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sarcastic Comment Because it's useful! (Seriously, read the previous five AFDs.) Divebomb is not British 20:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep standard list, every article in Wikipedia is prone to OR, and any article or list on any geographic topic would be a Wikitravel like thing. Wikitravel has prices and restaurant menus and admission fees that change quickly, and that is not evident here in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 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) 10:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Lists are sometimes also deleted because they duplicate the functionality of a category and the category serves the purpose better."

- Articles for deletion/Common outcomes


 * Categories and list are not mutually exclusive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this list is only links and doesn't explain it's entries in any way. Sinc this list is so large, it would be impossible to actually do so (explaining each entry). Thus, a simple category would work better. NotARealWord (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment But the list's clear definition is exactly what the problem with it is. It's a list of every single shopping mall in the United States of America. You can't possibly maintain a list with a scope that large. A category, yes. But a list? Nooooo. Divebomb is not British 17:55, 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)
 * Keep As an effective means of organizing articles for malls by city within state. No issues have existed with any difficulty in maintaining these lists to keep up with the addition of new notable shopping malls. Alansohn (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Has anyone here ever used this list for anything? If I want to find a shopping mall near a city or in a state I would just use Google or something similar. I can't think of a scenario in which anyone would use this list for anything other than looking at it and saying "What a lot of shopping malls everywhere". Why do people like to spend their time maintaining something which is never used? Is this just a product of compulsive list-making disorder? Dingo1729 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont think people use encyclopedias to decide where to shop, that is not what they are for. However when I am looking for that mall that used to be called by a different name, and now want to know the new name, I can go to the list to take me to that article. Or want to find what the first mall in, say, New Jersey, I look here. This is just a navigation device to make it easier to find articles, the same as any other list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, no, some lists do contain interesting or even useful information. They don't all use that "navigational aid" excuse. And I assume you were imagining ways in which someone might use the list rather than saying that you have really used it. I agree that an encyclopedia isn't a place that people look at to find somewhere to shop. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any valid category can be a valid list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where that remark is coming from, but I do hope you're not planning on creating a list for every category in Wikipedia. I'd really advise against it. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I already started the project. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a comment, I haven't used this specific article, but I have used the List of shopping malls in Thailand article - I couldn't remember the name of the place, but I knew where it was. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:26, 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)
 * For a list to have enough advantages, it must be able to explain each individual entry. The scope of this list is far too large to the point that a category works better. NotARealWord (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A category doesn't mean you can't have a list, no Wikipedia rule says so. Categories can be just as difficult to navigate, some have over one hundred pages. With a list you can use the browser's find function, you can't do that with a category that spans multiple pages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If somebody is just looking for shopping malls by state or region or whatever, subcategories would suffice. NotARealWord (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeated again, to see if it sinks in: A category doesn't mean you can't have a list, no Wikipedia rule says so. Or should we deleted the category since it is redundant with this list? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lists and categories each have different strengths and weaknesses, and are complementary. For example, if someone knows the name of a mall and wants to check where it is, using categories they might have to check lots of individual sub-categories where a simple search on a list will find it. Also, lists allow us to include notable entries that don't have their own articles yet. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an inappropriately repeated nomination--the two most recent AfDs were keep--them most recent one by SNOW. The earlier ones were no consensus, but it certainly looks like the consensus has clarified. to renominate after a snow keep seems a rather unusual thing to do.   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.    DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep All as a means of grouping notable malls by location. This is exactly what lists are for and consensus for retention of such lists has been consistent. Alansohn (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep All. Per Boing.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:26, 6 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.