Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Michigan (2nd 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)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Michigan[edit]

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

This is a clearly unencyclopedic topic, and it is lacking in sources. --Divebomb is not British 18:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, please see the following AFDs

as well ----Divebomb is not British 20:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also...

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smacks of WP:OR. In fact, most of the lists in Category:Lists of shopping malls should probably be deleted. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a travel guide NotARealWord (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all standard chart for navigation to existing articles. How is this a travel guide? A travel guide would have the products and prices. The sources are in the articles themselves, not in the list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator of list. 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 Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 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. Lists and categories go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 10:22, 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]
Keep all First and foremost, the way these AFDs were bundled is an absolute mess, and I'm only going to vote once rather than trawling every single AFD with the same rationale. Now, moving on, deletion is not The First Option for imperfect lists. These are capable of being improved, they are generally not so unwieldy as to be unmanageable, and categories and lists can - in fact, often should - co-exist. Townlake (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- These AfDs are not "bundled together". Divebomb created separate discussions for each list.NotARealWord (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -

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

NotARealWord (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "hotel or venue, etc". should include any type of commercial centre or tourist spot. Thus, T'm sure we shouldn't have these kinds of lists. NotARealWord (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What has "hotel or venue", "commercial centre", or "tourist spot" got to do with it? It's a list of shopping malls. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think commercial establishments are meant to be included among the etc.-- it's a restatement of the principle of NOT INDISCRIMINATE, an important requirement to be an encyclopedia rather than a mere web directory. But this list does not " include every tourist attraction, etc. " Rather, it contains ones notable enough for Wikipedia articles. The few red links need to be checked to see if they are also. (fwiw, most of my arguments for deletion of individual malls have been delete, and I've tried to help get consensus for tighter guidelines. this is not an area where I favor broad inclusion. ) DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 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.