Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping centres in Australia

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)[reply]

List of shopping centres in Australia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These kinds of lists are unmaintainable and prone to OR. Also Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Divebomb is not British 19:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, please see the following AFDs

as well ----Divebomb is not British 20:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also...

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per these lists are prone to OR and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of shopping centres in Australia by size has a higher OR and also POV then List of shopping centres in Australia. I also don't see how the list is a "travel guide", travel guides normally tell you were to visit and the address (not just the town/city it is in) rather being a list? I'm not a huge fan of lists (categories are better suited) but I'm not yet convinced to support the deletion. Bidgee (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's sufficient to have List of shopping centres in Australia by size. St Anselm (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just unencyclopedic. 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)[reply]
Delete -

the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.
— WP:NOTGUIDE

NotARealWord (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure I understand the relevance of that quote - could you possibly explain? Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just check the link, "hotel or venue, etc". should include any type of commercial centre or tourist spot. thus, i'm sure we shouldn't have these kinds of lists. NotARealWord (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a list of "hotels or venues", it's a list of shopping malls, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with tourist guides - what is it that makes you think it's a tourist guide? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we are going to apply WP:NOTGUIDE, then most lists (such as the list of National Parks, lists of buildings) would be deleted. While I dislike lists common-sense is that the lists are not tourist guides but are lists of notable locations which don't have any street address or phone numbers in the list (e.g. List of shopping centres in Australia) and are far more safer from WP:POV then List of shopping centres in Australia by size (which most of the Gross Leasable Areas is most likely entered by POV-pushers who think their local shopping centre is bigger then another) which is full of POV and WP:OR. Bidgee (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

I don't see why WP:NOTTRAVEL applies. Now, if the articles [I'm going to rip off NOTTRAVEL here, so go read it first] started listing the price of a cafe au lait at Gloria Jean's or the telephone number of the Myer outlet there, then yes, those would violate NOTTRAVEL, but that is not what is alleged to have occurred. Per Zebedee above, what does travel have to do with this?
Second, I don't see anything particularly OR'ish about listing shopping centres. The prohibition on OR is a widely misunderstood rule, and I don't see how OR applies to a list of shopping centres. At any rate, OR is not a rationale for deletion of an article, it's only a rationale for the deletion of the originally-researched content.
Third, I don't see why it's particularly unmaintainable - it's a list of shopping centres. How often do shopping centres open or close?
Fourth, if the existence of a shopping centre is encyclopedic, then I don't see how a list of them could be unencyclopedic.

I'd be open to merging this article with List of shopping centres in Australia by size.

Categories aren't a perfect substitute for lists. Cats just lump together articles, in a list article you can do stuff like sort entries - the size article, for examples, sorts centres two ways: by lettable area and by number of stores; you can't do that with categories. Miracle Pen (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as per WP:AOAL. Aeonx (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list does not " include every tourist attraction, etc. " Rather, it contains ones notable enough for Wikipedia articles. The relatively few red links need to be checked to see if they are also, & probably not all will be. I don't think we should have indiscriminate lists, and I certainly don't think we should have articles on non-notable shopping malls. But this list is already well on its way to being properly discriminating, though some further work in the area is needed. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.