Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basildon Town Centre


 * 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. this debate is a mess involving multiple articles and tons of non-policy based arguments, but considering the content changed since the AFD, this is a default no consensus. Secret account 15:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Basildon Town Centre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Leviathan lists with two blue links? This looks like a joke. WP is not a directory of not notable shops. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, a long table of which shops existed at e.g. 28, East Walk, Basildon and other Basildon adresses throughout the years is not a topic fit for Wikipedia; it doesn't helpm in navigation (as the individual shops aren't notable) and isn't as a whole a notable topic either. Fram (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason for this is show the changing face of the town centre or high street in the Uk. I am in the process of completing the first link - basildon and have several further town centres to add that I have researched it is just the time I need to add them. I aim to research as many town centres as I can. You say they are not notable, but the changing face is shown (which is notable) by the type of retailers that once occupied the town centre, from small local companies to the rather faceless corporate towns we now have. It also shows the changing face of the products on offer - TV rental shops use to be a regular fixture on every UK high street but are no longer seen. So are photography shops. It will also show the gradual departure from town centres of hardwear and electrical retailers. All of this are notable changes in society and are part of social history which should be documented. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which by definition is a book or books giving information. This is information which is useful to social historians, but is also not recorded elsewhere and would be lost without it being recorded --User:Davidstewartharvey — Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidstewartharvey (talk • contribs)
 * Does any of the content have sources? If the list is bringing together info in published sources it would probably be OK, but if it is all original research then I doubt it will be allowed to remain. This is not because there is anything wrong with the content, but because allowing good OR into one article would allow a lot of awful OR into other articles. An alternative might be to transfer all of it into the article's talk page as an archive. I have seen that method used on other articles. It will still be accessible to interested readers, but just not in the actual article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and deleted this material from the article and moved it to the talk page. Everyone here, whether for or against deletion, seems to agree that this material, though interesting, was OR and so could not have remained in the article. It should probably be in a separate talk page archive - but I do not know how to do this. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per the above. And if it were not deleted, all the non-anchor tenants should be removed in any case (the substance of this article), per WP:TENANTS. Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, this is interesting and it is a useful record for social historians. However, this isn't suitable for Wikipedia which is a general purpose, global encyclopaedia. There is some good research that has gone into this and it would be a shame if this is not made available somewhere - it may be suitable at Wikiversity but I'm not familiar enough with that project to say for definite. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a 1950s New Town, the 1950s-1970s shopping area will almost certainly be design notable, even if it is also a certain architectural failure like all of them. There is nothing in the article at the moment about the town centre's physical structure, but that is a content issue. Someone needs to dig up some old issues of AJ or AR. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A very brief hunt for sources confirms to me that there are more than enough sources and content to justify an article titled Basildon Town Centre. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unsupported suppositions as to design-worthiness don't carry much weight at AfD. Do you have evidence of RS refs that meet GNG or another criterion? Epeefleche (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry - I had assumed a minimum standard of source locating was a requirement to edit, and so thought no need to state the obvious. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The references section of this cites a number of contemporary sources indicating the design importance of Basildon Town Centre. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as listcruft that serves no purpose, Merge & Prose (to Basildon) is far more appropriate if that's preferred. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment.Merge Suggestion The article on Eastgate Shopping Centre (Basildon) was originally called Basildon Town Centre before it was renamed. For those unfamiliar Eastgate refers to part of the shopping centre (the indoor bit) whereas really we need an article on the whole shopping centre rather than part of it. The obvious answer would be to merge this with Eastgate and rename while continuing to work on the article and expand. Too sensible? 92.0.165.228 (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Eastgate Shopping Centre is NOT Basildon Town Centre. Even the most cursory google search should have informed you of that. Eastgate, from the 1980s, is a shopping mall. Basildon Town Centre is from the late 1950s to early 1970s and was constructed as the New Town was constructed and is an example of 1950s-1960s town planning. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Erm. I never said Eastgate=Town Centre and given I live in Basildon I'm quite familiar with the area. What I'm saying is that there should be an article called Basildon Town Centre covering the whole shopping area including Eastgate and including things like the Westgate development. The Eastgate article should be moved here. The distinction between Eastgate and the Town Centre shops is completely artificial in my humble opinion. 92.0.165.228 (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the lists I'm unsure that there can ever be completely accurate or verified. For example the unit that is Bon Marche was previously a Dixons/Currys (http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/8323246.Currys_pulls_the_plug_on_town_centre_store/). I'm not sure the records exist to know what units were 40+ years ago. 92.0.165.228 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Basildon Town Centre is a fairly intact example of post-WW2 British modernist utopian urban design. Eastgate is a typical 1980s indoor shopping mall of local economic significance but of no architectural or historical significance. A mention could be made of Eastgate Shopping Centre as part of the later history of Basildon Town Centre, but I think they are far too different as subjects to ever be merged. The lists issue is a content issue, not an AfD issue. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Eastgate was the largest indoor shopping mall in Europe back in 1985 so I can't agree with the suggestion it is of no historical significance. Now not all that significant but back before Lakeside, Bluewater and Westfield something of a novelty. 92.0.165.228 (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that merging Eastgate into this article is something to be considered further as neither article is anywhere near large enough that if merged there would be need for summary style articles. -- PBS (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is a Basildon page, anything useful can go on that page. Not a useful fork. Szzuk (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So, by your reasoning, you are saying that every article about any building or monument or notable urban feature should be deleted from Wikipedia and just placed inside the article about the settlement that said building or monument or notable urban feature lies within? Yes? Or is it just for unfortunate Basildon that this reasoning applies? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm the IP 92.0.165.228 above and a Basildon resident by the way.


 * 1) The Grade II listed status of parts of the centre and the fact that the Eastgate Centre was at one point the biggest indoor shopping centre in Europe means IMHO that there should be some kind of article related to Basildon's Town Centre shopping precinct.
 * 2) I believe that this should be in one article though some do make a pedantic distinction between 'Easgate' and 'Basildon Town Centre' so there is an argument for this being split. Makes little sense to me as in common usage 'Basildon Town Centre' refers to all the shops
 * 3)I believe the lists are ultimately unverifiable. There has been quite a high amount of change in shopping units just during the period following credit crunch/recession. What units were back in the 50s? Who knows?


 * I don't really have much trust in this AfD as ultimately anyone can contribute regardless of their level of expertise on the topic. Ulcerspar12 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ulcerspar12 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * New arrivals to this AfD need to know that the article has changed substantially since the start of this AfD, changed to the extent that I think most of the original objections are no longer valid. The article is no longer just a list article full of OR. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. You haven't established the notability of the topic of Basildon Town Centre. There are no pages such as Stratford Upon Avon Town Centre. Why is crappy Basildon deserving of a separate town centre page? Szzuk (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As to Ulcer's observation of not trusting this AfD "as ultimately anyone can contribute regardless of their level of expertise on the topic" -- well, that's of course the very nature of AfDs. And editing on Wikipedia. We don't rely on people having a level of expertise.  In fact, it counts for naught.  (Admittedly, this can be be frustrating when editors who lack knowledge of ... let's say ... copyright law ... out!vote those who have knowledge of it).  But at AfD, the !vote is based on what the RSs show.  Not on individual knowledge.  Of interest, perhaps, is the wikipedia policy No original research. Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I contribute to AFD discussions and not much else, I've done thousands of them. I have expert knowledge on procedure I don't need to be an expert on individual topics. In my opinion this is just a content fork with loads of OR. I do regularly change my mind during AFDs but I've not read anything in this discussion so far. Szzuk (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability arises because Basildon Town Centre is one of the earliest planned town centre's in Britain's post-WW2 New Town building project - with parts of it designed by an extremely notable architect, constructed by an extremely notable construction group (and is an early work of said group), and is of such architectural importance that several parts of it now has grade 2 listed status (a grade 2 listing is for particularly important structures of more than special interest). All that is in the article. What Ulcer said is true - anyone can contribute regardless of their level of expertise on the topic. Comments like "crappy Basildon" show what that level is for some - and the "other pages do not exist" argument that accompanies it is invalid for an AfD. (And other pages dedicated to planned urban environments do exist, though the standard of architecture-related articles on Wikipedia is generally very low). Also invalid is "at AfD, the vote is based on what the RSs show. Not on individual knowledge". That is wrong. Actually, the weight of an argument should make a difference at an AfD, and (if properly adjudicated by the closer) simple weight of respondent numbers should not. A strong argument presented strongly requires expertise. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't have any references saying Basildon Town Centre is notable and you are trying to construct notability through Synthesis. There are 5 Delete and 2 Keep votes. Szzuk (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Sadly, no evidence of notability. However, notability cannot be synthetized and WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Wikicology (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You have not a clue as to what Listed Status means, do you, Mr Wikicology? Listing confirms notability, grade 2 listing confirms notability of "more than special interest". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea of why you directed such a non-sequitur comment to me. You need to really familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. I incline to consider that you have no clue of how AfD works. Please kindly refrain from directing your comments to me. Wikicology (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not Wikipedia that gives notability - it is external sources that show notability. I'm sorry for presenting my earlier question rather crudely, I admit it did sound rather insulting, but DO YOU actually know what a Grade 2 listed building is? Grade 2 listing means that impartial experts have decided that there are notable parts of Basildon Town Centre that are, to use the wording of those experts, of "more than special interest". I don't think the notability of Basildon Town Centre can be in doubt - the question is if the article's subject is better in a standalone article (I think it is) or inside the Basildon article, or in the same article as the Eastgate Shopping Centre. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Tiptoethrutheminefield (and Wikipedia is not a paper based encyclopaedia), but do not reincorporate the lists now on the talk page. -- 16:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As an administrator on wikipedia you are perfectly aware of WP:V and most likely have resources to search above and beyond most regular editors. Can you provide a ref that will satisfy the concerns of this AFD regarding synth and the notability of the topic? Szzuk (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Administrator does not mean super user! My opinion is worth no more or no less than yours. Yes I am aware of WP:V, but I have neither more or less ability to search for sources than you do. It seems that just about ever sentence in the article (now) carries a citation, and that they are a similar quality to those used in the Basildon article. You stated above "You don't have any references saying Basildon Town Centre is notable" but are there any references that say Basildon is notable? If every article on Wikipedia had to have an explicit source that says something is notable, then many many articles would have to be deleted. A Google book search on ["Basildon Town Centre" 1950s] returns several books which if I was reading any them I might well want to know more about "Basildon Town Centre" so that I could better understand what better the authors are talking about. While searing I also came across a briefing paper (Heritage Assessment: Basildon Town Centre) which seems to me to show that this article is not in breach of WP:SYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". -- PBS (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just merged most of the useful info into Basildon. If there is a delete no need to lose that. Szzuk (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the content has been merged to another article, a full delete should not happen as it would remove all attribution and fail to comply with copyright. Either a merge and redirect or a keep are the best options to avoid such problem. Diego (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In hindsight I'd have voted Merge, the article was so full of OR the nom's comment about the article being a joke liked right, when the OR was removed there was something to salvage. Closing admin will close as looks appropriate. Szzuk (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase Keynes: "When the facts change I change my opinion". Then why not strike through you delete opinion and add a new one at the bottom suggesting a merge into the Basildon article?  I don't think that is the best way to go and I think the information in Basildon should remain a summary of this article.-- PBS (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm repeating myself but Eastgate Shopping Centre (Basildon) is a part of Basildon Town Centre built during the 1980s consumer boom. Look at the image on page 3 of the Council's regeneration plans here . Basildon Town Centre is the urban mass demarked by the green lines. Eastgate needs merging here. Ulcerspar12 (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We can't look into that before we decide about this article. (On the other hand, a glimpse at that article makes me think that it may also come here for discussion.) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I raised the merge issue as my point is that - In my view - this whole AfD is debating the notability of half a town centre! The fact that Basildon Town Centre houses what was at one point the largest indoor shopping area in Europe is surely relevant to any discussion of notability. Admittedly, at the moment I can’t find a better source than this biography of  Depeche Mode who came out of Basildon.  Must be a better source somewhere. I’ll do some digging. Ulcerspar12 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If this article is deleted, the one on Eastgate Shopping Centre will eventually go too. On Wikipedia, are we now only going to have a single article for everything inside a town of substantial size, or is it just for unfortunate Basildon? The second best alternative might be merging this article with the Eastgate one, keeping the title of this article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is something of a Catch-22 but the threat of deletion is actually deterring me from improving this article! I could go to Basildon Town Centre tomorrow and take a dozen pictures for this article – but why when the threat of deletion hangs over it! I am happy to work with you to improve this article if/once it survives AfD. What an absurd situation this is! Ulcerspar12 (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There is just sufficient evidence for notability, though more would be helpful.  There might be a good case for merging, but that should be discussed separately.  DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment If any would like to work on this article rather than delete it another area for research is the St. Martin's Belltower which claims to be the world's only steel and glass belltower. (http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/47070) Ulcerspar12 (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.