Churches, small junior football teams, small local schools, old buildings; these rarely get challenged for notability. Yet shopping centres in 2007 are more central to the life of towns than any of these. I think there is an element of regarding commerce (which created towns in the first place!) as 'unworthy'. In 50 years time some of these malls will be on the preservationists list! (Sarah77722:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
OK. I've gone out on a limb defending SC articles; that stuff was added back again and removed again. If anyone restores I'm going to re-classify this 'article' as a "list". (Sarah77702:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
OK, just so nobody gets the idea we are being harsh in removing this information, Sarah777 (forgive me if i'm wrong) and myself are tending to keep this article conforming to WP:MALLS#Structure and the related sub-essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers/Anchors and tenants. The essay does endorse the idea that only Anchor tenants be listed on the article. This list is perfectly fine in residing here on the talk page, expand it if you wish, but I believe it should remain here Exit2DOS2000•T•C•07:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In fact if someone could come up with a neat infobox for tenants/retailers it might reduce the presentational negatives of these lists. Maybe. (Sarah77720:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It's not a merely a presentational problem (although that is a big negative associated with tenant lists). Tenants tend to change often, so the lists on Wikipedia tend to be out-of-date. Tenant lists also tend to attract a fair amount of vandalism. But most importantly, Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a mall guide -- these lists are not encyclopedic. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
