Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mall walking


 * 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, with no prejudice against a further merge discussion happening on the article talk page. - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   09:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mall walking

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Difficult to really define why this is non-notable. This is little more than a needless WP:CONTENTFORK of walking. Nothing really distinguishes this activity from simply walking except for the location. There are Ghits for the term, much of that being promotional material from malls that allow pre-opening walking. This may actually border on WP:NEO except that the term isn't that new. Really not seeing anything that differentiates this activity enough to make it notable on it's own. There are articles telling us why it's convenient and safe, but nothing really making it different than walking. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. One way notability might be established if more in-depth sourcing can be found discussing how this emerged as a fad, especially for seniors.  GNews has oodles of brief mentions, e.g.  but I agree that these don't really do much to differentiate mall-walking from walking.  If something more substantial turns up, I'd be inclined to support a keep here; otherwise probably not. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That was my dilemna. I can find talking about it, but it's really just walking. Plenty of people walk in the park, but we don't see articles on "park walking" or "sidewalk walking". I wouldn't necessarily oppose a redirect, but prefer that to be the outcome of a AfD, not just something I do on my own. I tagged it for notability a year ago and I haven't seen any improvement or coverage that makes me feel like it's more notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, here are some examples of articles that explcitly focus on mall walking as a phenomenon, and maybe could show the way to a worthwhile article:
 * "Mall Walkers Prefer Their Miles Among The Aisles Fitness Enthusiasts Going To Malls For Hustle, Not Bustle", Philadelphia Inquirer, May 11, 1993. Includes the following:
 * No one knows when the first person cruised a mall for exercise as opposed to merchandise. But there is some evidence for when folks started to formalize the pastime. "It truly started as a way to get out of the weather," said Seth Bauer, editor of The Walking Magazine, a national publication based in Boston. "Now they've become very social and it's become perfectly natural for walkers to go to the mall because they know they'll see their friends."  The first organized mall walking program traces its roots to 1985 in Colorado, according to the Walking Magazine; by 1986, King of Prussia Plaza and Cherry Hill had their own, the first in the area.  Since then, the activity has grown to the point where roughly 1 million of the nation's frequent fitness walkers do it in the mall, according to statistics provided by The Walking Magazine. "It definitely grew fast in the late '80s, and it's still growing to some extent," Bauer said. There is even a National Organization of Mall Walkers, based in the small town of Hermann, Mo., which does not have a mall, by the way.
 * "Mall walkers in Chicago win back their walking privileges", All Things Considered, March 14, 2001. ("More than 2,000 shopping malls in the US open their doors early for people, mostly senior citizens, to get some indoor exercise. Managers of one mall in Chicago tried to stop the practice. Seniors fought back.")
 * "Walkers flock to malls to meet, sweat: Shopping centers replacing fitness centers for new type of exercise workout", Post-Tribune, July 7, 1991. (Survey of malls' practices regarding their mall walkers; tells how one mall antagonized its customers by charging a $10 fee.)
 * "Mall Walking Club Promotes Healthy Sense of Community; Iverson Shopping Center, Hospital Unite to Provide Fitness Program", The Washington Post, January 23, 2003. (Focuses on one very large mall-walker club, discusses others.)
 * Comments/other examples invited. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I know the term is used. Never implied that we couldn't find the term in use. The question is, what makes this a stand alone article. Heck, I'd be ok with a section in the walking article on it. But as a stand alone article, it looks like a needless content fork. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Legitimate cultural phenomenon in the USA for at least 15 years, probably more. Hush Puppies has had a men's shoe in the line for a decade called the "Mall Walker" anyway. Absolutely the object of coverage in multiple independently-published sources. The article sucks a bit, but that's not a mortal offense. Carrite (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you oppose a merge and redirect? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Legitimate activity discussed in reliable sources, just like hillwalking or the various other types of walking that have WP articles (hiking, canyoning, etc). --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - both Carrite and Colapeninsula make valid points but I can't help but think this could be merged somewhere else as Niteshift36 has suggested. I suppose my thinking is that this could probably be covered at walking, but I also wouldn't be strongly opposed to keeping a standalone article if there's enough content to justify one. Adding some content based on the sources provided above would probably be justification enough to keep it separate. I know that's not a particularly helpful contribution to WP:CONSENSUS, but anyway. Stalwart 111  23:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've proposed here to have the current Walking page split so that the current page focuses on bio-mechanical ambulation and a new page focuses on walking as an exercise and activity. Not really relevant if the consensus is "keep" but some people (myself included) might feel better about merging if the target article was specifically about walking for health reasons, as opposed to a general overview of bipedal locomotion. Angrysockhop  ( talk to me ) 06:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:GNG it's just "walking". Redirect if you must, but I don't even see the point in doing that much. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources provided in the article, here and additional sources available at "OUT OF ORDER; At the Mall, Walking and Wondering Why" and "Weekend Walker's Cry: To the Mall!" from The New York Times go back decades and establish the notability of the concept as an independent concept. Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute it gets talked about, the question is whether or not it is really independent. I can find articles that talk about someone driving a Mustang....so do we really need a "mustang driving" article? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about driving a Mustang. We are talking about walking in a mall. Please stay on topic. I vote keep, due to the various sources provided above. Tinton5 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Overly literal much? Instead of being really anal about wording, try looking at the concept. Yeah, we are talking about walking in a mall, just walking. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources cover this as an independent concept, and the phenomenon has been discussed in the urban planning literature not just as something some people do, but its implications for how people relate to suburban architecture, suburban planning, and sense of security. The concept has implications beyond just being one of many places in which people walk. Circumspect (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2012 (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.