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

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 Mandsford 14:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Romania[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 19:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, please see the following AFDs

as well ----Divebomb is not British 20:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also...

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, unless we adopt a "delete one, delete all" with this topic, the precedent has already been set. What about the List_of_shopping_centres_in_the_United_Kingdom? Eddie.willers (talk) 20:21, 26 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} 20:32, 26 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)} 23:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep. This is useful info, worthy of project inclusion. It is a simple list. There is coverage of these malls. NOT A TRAVEL GUIDE does not apply here.Turqoise127 04:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there is coverage of more than a few of these malls, why is it not included in the list? Your rationale is dubious. ----Divebomb is not British 16:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not so dubious, considering the several keeps that followed...Turqoise 127 04:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those keeps were cross-posted to all the AFDs. And you have yet to provide any evidence for your claim. ----Divebomb is not British 08:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I count 27 entries in the list with their own articles (after I redlinked several that were linked to the wrong articles), and a further 57 with references, and that looks like pretty reasonable coverage to me. I haven't actually checked the references of the redlinked ones, and they need to be turned into proper refs - I'll be happy to do that if the article survives this AfD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But how many refs are actually up to snuff? This is like the uBLP debate: we should be exterminating the ones that are badly sourced, not the ones that are unsourced. ----Divebomb is not British 12:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I agree that the refs all need to be checked and unverifiable entries should ultimately be removed, but I think that's a maintenance issue rather than a reason to delete the article. I think the 27 entries with their own articles show sufficient coverage to keep the list, and we can work on maintenance later if it is kept. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 28 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) 10:23, 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]
Weak Delete; I think Boing! said Zebedee! made some very good points (I'm puzzled by the mention of WP:TRAVELGUIDE which is irrelevant imho) but I think the list is wildly unmanageable and not really notable itself. If individual malls are notable, feel free to write articles about those malls (and put them in a category). I would support an article which is more prose than list, if it drew on independent sources to discuss malls in Romania more generally. bobrayner (talk) 03:23, 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 / 02:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as per WP:AOAL. Aeonx (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in order to help develop the articles. In a part of the world we find relatively difficult to work with, a list with a considerable number of red links like this can be justified, especially as the articles seem to be in the process of being worked on progressively. I expect some of the few red links will be found non-notable and deleted--& fwiw, most of my opinions at AfD for individual malls have been delete DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mixing a 6th AfD nomination with new nomination and a bunch of 2nd nominations is never a good idea since they are not similarly situated. Essentially, the nomination is asking us to make process that agrees that List of shopping malls in any location has no place within Wikipedia. This, I cannot do. For future reference, here is some information on the topic:

List of shopping mall etc. lists deletion discussions

List of current shopping mall etc. list articles

You also can find such lists in user space here. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:20, 12 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.