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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Malaysia[edit]

List of shopping malls in Malaysia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Declined speedy. This article was originally deleted as listcruft on January 16, 2007 by way of consensus. I propose that this is trivial directory information thus it violates WP:NOTDIR and should be deleted on those grounds (or speedy re-deleted). JBsupreme (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Information, Navigation & Development is the purpose of a list. Its up to the Articles to show WP:N of the bluelinks. It seems to be fufilling its purpose nicely to me. I also notice several misguided arguments in the previous AFD. eg "Malaysia doesn't have 30 notable shopping centers" & "Categories are more useful and relevant" neither statement is proven or debated in a convincing way. A Relist should have been in order as a 2 day AFD debate is, you have to admit, unusual. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Some of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United States (5th nomination) may be relevant here. Annotated lists provide some context that categories do not, and serve as reminders of articles that need to be created about notable malls that are currently redlinks. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's a manageable and useful list. The only compelling argument in favour of deletion is that a category could be a better implementation. However, for whatever reason, wikipedia often has both. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as for those in other countries that have recently appeared here. For the aareas where there are no blue links, consider keeping the links for a bit until someone can at least add stubs.DGG (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a useful, focused list that acts as a guide to navigation and article creation as well as providing context a category cannot. - Dravecky (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and improve. It contains a clear focus, can easily be sourced, and information can be added that a category cannot give (for instance, which is the largest in Malaysia, etc.). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and remove any unsourced red links. There is no way to actually tell (unless you're an administrator) if this is a genuine repost, so I don't think the db-repost is necessarily valid. The list is otherwise manageable and is capable of serving a purpose beyond categories. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:07, 28 October 2008 (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.