Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broad Street Mall


 * 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. Nothing to suggest this needs to be deleted. Can easily be cleaned up and as editors have noted, there are sources of it. (non-admin closure)    Kadzi    (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Broad Street Mall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No suggestion at all, anywhere, that this is notable as a structure or a landmark. A few local newspaper articles prove that it exists--but that is not enough for an article. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep When searching I also found mostly local newspaper coverage, which is perhaps to be expected, though the local newspapers are, I would argue, reliable sources; I also found this photo history, which could be used to expand the article. I did also find  from the Estates Gazette about the centre itself, and a couple of news stories from the Daily Telegraph  and from the BBC  about stories related to the centre; more substantial coverage of the latter appears in the local newspaper sources.  (The centre used to be called the Butts Centre, with its name changing around the advent of online news coverage, so I didn't find much under that name—but it might appear under that name in older print sources.) YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Other bits include from Reading Museums on the history of the site, and  about its opening, from a source I've never heard of but which may be reliable (it seems to have staff and a company owning it, rather than being simply user-generated content or a blog). YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look at that Flashbak site--it's a bit odd in its lack of clarity about what it is, but I wouldn't discredit it right away. The thing is, it has very little text (and that's the kind of thing I would have accepted, since it looks decent), and so it doesn't help much in writing the article, and the unknown quality of its quality means it can't add much weight to the notability matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not the best article, and in my defence when I created it 15 years ago WP policies on all sorts of issues were still very much evolving, so I probably didn't pay as much attention as I would now to notability and sourcing. Later editors havn't helped by making it too much like a mall directory. But we should remember that deletion is not cleanup and there is notability and sources to be had. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2020 (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.