Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Alaska

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 04:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Alaska[edit]

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. Also not all the malls are blue links, and Category:Shopping_malls_in_Alaska also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina for more rationale on this. ++Lar: t/c 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator ++Lar: t/c 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see you're nominating a bunch of these articles. It would be better to bundle these nominations together, rather than to have 50 of them voted on separately. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion in case you aren't aware of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xyzzyplugh (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am aware of it, but choose to do a few at a time, the circumstances differ among them and I'm not planning to do all of them at once. Some have already been deleted independently. Good advice in general though! ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another note, while I realise it may make things a bit harder for those that comment, if all of them were put up as a single item, the closing admin would really have his or her hands full closing it should the consensus be delete... there are a fair number of inbound links to clean, and by having each one separate, the work can be divided. That's my thinking. ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent set by deletion of North Caroline list. Fabricationary 01:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has a cat. SynergeticMaggot 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. R.E. Freak 05:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 05:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use the category. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 11:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. Th ε Halo ^Θ 12:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Individual malls should probably be considered for deletion as well. Artw 15:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category serves the same purpose. Ericj 20:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I guess I have to go against the flow here. A list such as this, if the article is expanded, offers a greater value than simply adding articles to a category for the following reasons: 1) Adding the redlinks is a nice engraved invitation to "add content". You can't do that with categories unless you just create a bunch of stub articles but it's not quite as inviting because you have to open each one to see if it's a stub. 2) These articles don't (yet) do it, but the list could include a simple elaboration giving more information than just the article title, such as "Mall 1- Alaska's largest mall, in Anchorage", "Mall 2- Some notable information about this mall, in Juneau" (sorry, I'm a pretty anti-mall person, so I'm not the best person to illustrate the potentials here, but I hope I'm making my point). Overall, I think the articles have potential as navigation and indexing tools, but that potential is yet to be demonstrated. I don't think it's a reason to delete. I don't find it much different from the articles I spend much more of my own time on, which involve the taxonomy of fish. A majority of the higher-level taxa articles (genus and above) end up merely being a list of sub-taxa, although in time, someone (like me) will eventually come along and add some really good information to those besides the list itself (just a random example: Sucker catfish). This opinion applies to all the similar articles nominated below, but I won't copy and paste it down there yet until I see what other people have to say about what I've said here. Neil916 23:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this and all other similar lists, whether nominated yet or not. Crabapplecove 02:14, 24 July 2006 (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.