Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drake Circus Shopping 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. W.marsh 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Drake Circus Shopping Centre

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Completing nomination for 81.132.102.112. Reason given is "not notable - based mostly on old news stories - inaccurate facts - advertising a shopping mall - incorrect trademark attribution - see discussion page". --- RockMFR 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note this may be a bad-faith nomination .  E LIMINATOR JR  14:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete irrespective of whether it's bad faith, this is a small shopping centre in a not especially big place. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete : The sooner this article disappears down the pan the better. Its notability is in question even though the nominator's comment "based mostly on old news stories" means that it has actually had press coverage. The cost of the disruption to WP that this and its associated article (Drake Circus has caused outweighs its usefulness to the project. It most certainly is a bad faith nomination as well as a WP:POINT making exercise, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the place is a nonentity in global terms.  WebHamste r  15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Change of mind. After seeing some of the comments here and doing some Google searches (144,000 hits on ""drake circus" -drakecircus.com"). In fact it's looking like it should be the Drake Circus article that's up for AfD, not this one. I couldn't find anything about Drake Circus on Google that wasn't related to the shopping centre.  WebHamste r  12:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 'comment' if i may quote you from a comment you posted on a discussion page 'wikipedia is not google'. In any event on googles first page we have or  but as you say wikipedia is not google.81.155.65.71 14:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * - — 81.155.65.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I have no idea what your comment is trying to say, but the first link is not an independent source (and so what if some houses are being built there, that is no indicator of notability it just means there was some spare land there) and the second link is about the shopping centre.  WebHamste r  14:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In case you had forgotten this is what you advised another user ... "It looks like your complaint should be with Google not Wikipedia. WP does not control what Google indexes or how it is indexed. Google indexes are not verified by anyone and there is no requirement to do so as it its virtually totally automated. Rather than commit any more faux pas I suggest you click on Drake Circus then click on Drake Circus Shopping Centre and then report back on your findings. Meanwhile it may be prudent to reflect on the fact that Wikipedia is not spelt G-O-O-G-L-E.  WebHamster 15:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)" 81.155.65.71 14:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and...?  WebHamste r  14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * a large number of hits on a search engine are no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god.81.155.65.71 14:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why gHits are used contextually. In this context 144,000 hits for what you like to term "just some shops" is contextually relevant. gHits are not used as an absolute source, but they can be a reasonably reliable indicator in extremes.  WebHamste r  14:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * the second link appearing on page 1 of google for 'drake circus' or 'drake circus shopping' is indeed about the shopping centre - that is the shopping centre of the drake circus district - not the shopping mall - please try and understand the two are seperate and apart.81.155.65.71 15:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It strikes me as more like "shops in the centre of Drake Circus" rather than as a "shopping centre". This site would not be considered to a WP:RS as the site is provided by one of the local shopkeepers, i.e. Silverstall Jewellers, and is therefore not independent. Regardless, it's irrelevant to this discussion, as is your Google digression.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebHamster (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * which is a mall - separate and distinct from the shopping centre within the Drake Circus area (also appears on first page of google for drake Circus) - In case you had forgot the drake circus.com site is also provided by a local shopkeeper - albeit possibly a bigger one.Nicole 50dc 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: then the vandals will find another article they don't like: "nonentity in global terms" could apply to the vast majority of people/places that are the subject of Wikipedia articles. - Snigbrook 04:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No comment on the first half, but I agree with the second half of what Snigbrook writes. Consider this, etc. etc. -- Hoary 09:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak and conditional delete Only claim to notability, if any, is its badness; if the opinion that it was an unparallelled atrocity were a published article rather than a website, I would support keeping this. Otherwise: there is a shopping centre; it has had cash flow problems; the neighbours object. Dog bites man. Include in the article on the neighborhood, if at all.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My condition has been met, so Keep or Merge. On the whole, I would prefer to see much of this condensed into Drake Circus, and some rewritten into an article on the Carbuncles Prize, which would of course keep the picture. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WebHamster and Septentrionalis. Notability is shakey at best and someone needs to take away these bored students' soapbox. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Drake Circus. Sufficient notability but not sure of need for two articles. Snigbrook 03:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the shopping centre seems to be notable, maybe the Drake Circus article should be merged into this and other articles. Snigbrook 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * comment: actually the Drake Circus article is useless, as its purpose seems to be an attempt to prove a point that Drake Circus is an area that does not include the adjacent Drake Circus Shopping Centre. Snigbrook 16:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the Drake Circus article is (or will be)an attempt to publish an account of a district that among other things brings together a rich variety of scientific, cultural, academic and historical institutions and values. The mall is not in the same area so you may just as well merge it into an article on Sir Francis Drake or Chipperfield Circus. Its only connection is the similarity of the name (its like merging an article on Paris Hilton into an article on Paris)Nicole 50dc 20:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC) — Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete its contents are not verified as the 'official' site it refers to contains no or completely different facts. It is completely unheard of outside Plymouth and the references to the BBC links are extremely localized and old news. There also seems to be an issue/dispute over the use of an unlicensed logo/trademark which does inclusion of this article justify. As for 'merge' it is not in the Drake Cicus district and has nothing to with it other than sharing a similar name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.155.198 (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This IP has, rather bizarrely, complained to himself about legal threats; otherwise, his edits are very few and devoted to this shopping centre. -- Hoary 12:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the course of trying to link to their terms and conditions page on their website it was mysteriously taken down and replaced with a pop-up. It then left my original post stranded with no reference. I tried to explain this on my user page but i admit not very well which is why i changed it. For obvious reasons i cannot and will not discuss my correspondence with other third parties. It seems more than a coincidence that their site was being rapidly changed last night/this morning when web archives will confirm that no pages had been updated for nearly a year and it seems obvious that whoever is operating that site is closely monitoring anything said on this site. In any event what has any of this to do with my original post other than your attempts to yet again divert or flame the orginal subject matter being discussed.
 * No, it was just a standard sock-puppet warning for the benefit of whoever closes this AfD. Meanwhile, enjoy your conspiracy theories but don't assume that they interest other people. -- Hoary 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: In support of its (unwanted!) notability I've added to the article another link about the "truly awful" design, this one from The Times; and clarified that the Carbuncle Cup is awarded by Building Design, which is "the UKs best-read architectural weekly with a circulation in excess of 25,000, thats 70% of all architects across the UK." --Smalljim 15:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete
 * 1. Its an advert for a few shops and/or a link to blatant commercial promotion such as spudulike
 * 2.Its chief resource is a dubious website which states 'drakecircus is the only covered mall in the south west'. That is untrue as there are many more in, Exeter, or the broadmead at bristoland even another covered shopping mall in plymouth
 * 3.There is little of any encyclopaedic value one can say about it.
 * 4.It disgracefully refers to the war memorial which has nothing whatsoever to do with the mall other than having the misfortune of being in the same city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)  — Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: As the article is pretty much a stub "unencyclopaedic" isn't necessarily an accurate description. It's "chief resource" is not the website. Only minor details for the info box have been taken directly from the website (floor space, owners/developers, management company). The rest is either from editor input or external news sources.


 * Having a side-effect of being an advert is not a reason to delete an article. The article is not written in an advertorial manner, there's a difference.


 * The article does not describe the mall as being the only covered shopping mall in the south-west, the website does that so it has no relevance to this AfD.


 * I don't know why you choose to use the term "disgraceful" in relation to the war memorial. That's being non-NPOV and has no place on WP. The sentence in question "The new building, designed by Chapman Taylor Partnership and situated behind the ruined Charles Church, preserved as the city's civilian war memorial, has provoked a mixed reception." could hardly be described as being disgraceful.


 * So it seems that none of your points stand, add to the fact that this is a SPA account then I advise the closing admin to disregard the comments.  WebHamste r  21:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * not written in an advertorial manner "..with a wide range of fillings. It has branches across Britain." on its spudulike stub. Or "It includes such retailers as Next, Primark, Waterstone's, Virgin, Spudulike, Burger King and Schuh, and abuts an enlarged Marks and Spencer.". If you want to turn wikipedia into a shopping directory then fine go ahead. Why is there an article on these few shops anyway? Why not allow any and every shop an article? I’m sure any local shop could dredge up some link to a news item about a shoplifter caught on its premises, or a vandalsim or opening soon or new manager etc etc.Nicole 50dc 12:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly the Spudulike article has no relevance to this AfD per WP:WAX. Secondly, thanks for your permission, I'm sure Jimbo will be so pleased.  WebHamste r  13:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep 5 references, at least two of which are both from RSs and substantial. That's more than most shopping centers. The nomination is apparently a dispute between whether the name applies to the area, the shopping enter, or the university located there. For documentation see the talk page of the article--where the various parties attempt to accuse each other of libel and other legal issues. See further the comments of WebHamster at the user page of one of the people who made the threats. .  (he has already been blocked for it by another admin). This should be speedy kept as an obvious bad faith and disruptive nomination. DGG (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * comment The main reference is the drake circus.com site which itself states "The centre is on schedule for completion and due to be open for business on 5th October 2006." Either it is out of date or it is accurate - either way it does not reconcile with any of the facts stated in the article. The other references relate to minor local news which again are out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The main reference is not official website much as you would like it to be. Your arguments seem very similar to other SPA editors here so it could be a reasonable assumption that there is some sockpuppetry going on. Regardless of that please be aware that from a WP standpoint notability does not have a time limit and doesn't time out, therefore being "old news" is irrelevant.  WebHamste r  14:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * an encyclopedia is supposed to contain information that is a bit less sensitive to the passage of time than that. A hundred years from now, no one will care that such and such a shopping mall was opened in 2006, but they will care about e.g. the battle of hastings because that was a truly exceptional notable event.Nicole 50dc 16:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. Article is sourced and appears to meet notability guidelines.  Likely disruption is not a reason to delete an article. --Goobergunch|? 06:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Goobergunch. -- Hoary 07:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It is an article on a few shops in a relatively small mall, whose web-site contradicts both itself and any facts stated in the article.81.155.65.71 14:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * - — 81.155.65.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  example Tutankhamun
 * Actually it's an article about a new £200m shopping centre that has received considerable press. What the off-wiki website does or doesn't say is irrelevant to this AfD  WebHamste r  14:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * comment It is the chief source upon which you base the article and it is factually wrong and out of date.81.155.65.71 14:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No it isn't the chief source. See above  WebHamste r  14:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * make up your mind! In the discussion pages webhamster said
 * "I have a reference, now where's yours, see WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth? Put up or shut up. The info in the infobox came from the horse's mouth, I wonder which end of the horse yours is coming from?" WebHamster 01:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * “...The official website of the shopping centre is so far the most reliable source (per WP guidelines) we have.” WebHamster 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your incessant contradictions are unneccassirly drawing out this discussion to a point where it becomes as unreadable as the discussion page. Please stop.Nicole 50dc 15:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your incessant trolling, misspelling and using quotes out of context is noted and will no longer be responded to, at least not by me.  WebHamste r  17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the point made was to draw attention to the various contradictions you keep making. You elected for this article to be deleted - then you changed it to keep it - based on a few Google results which you kept on emphasizing were of no consequence. You kept on and on that drakecircus.com was the official site and now you are saying it is not. Anyone who dares to challenge you is labeled a troll or puppet or whatever and you block them. Why can’t we have a level-headed discussion?81.155.65.71 18:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no contradictions. It's all been spelled out to you in very basic terms. If you can't or won't understand then that's your problem, not mine. What is clear is that you are attempting to steer the discussion away from the fact that there now appears to be some notability much to your chagrin. Your digressions are transparent to the experienced editors here, as is your trolling. If you wish to learn then look at WP:Notability and WP:RS, if you don't then may I suggest you just read the sports page of the Daily Star. BTW, I'm done with your obtuse trolling.  WebHamste r  19:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * stub it After endless discussion which just seems to go round and round in circles why not move this article into a stub from Shopping_mallsand move the article on Drake_circus into a stub from plymouth maybe review them both in a few months time and if they have not improved then delete them. 81.155.65.71 17:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should understand what a "stub" is before passing comments like this.  WebHamste r  17:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not as experienced as you in whatever Wikipedia terminology is correct or wrong, but i thought a stub was an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. This article only has a few sentences and most of that is simply repeating what is in drakecircus.com.81.155.65.71 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It already is pretty much a stub so how do you suggest we "stub" it further?  WebHamste r  19:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * o.k. so if it is a stub from Drake_circus- My point is to make it a stub from shopping malls81.155.65.71 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't a "stub from Drake Circus", neither can it be a "stub from shopping mall", it isn't a "stub" from anything. A stub is an individual article containing very little information. It may or may not belong in a category, it may or may not belong to a WikiProject but it doesn't come FROM anything. Does that explain it enough for you?  WebHamste r  20:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete hey its a shopping mall that opened in 2006 - period - is that really notable? In Texas we have one in every town or city - hardly ground breaking news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.170.3 (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)  — 86.151.170.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   Incidentally, this is a British Telecom IP.
 * Would that be Texas, Devon you're referring to? BTW, nice edit summary.   WebHamste r  12:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not labor the point, Hamster. -- Hoary 12:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * see my discussion page - i note you cannot deny it is just a darn mall - instead just filling this page with yet more of your trolling.

* keep it  but remove the links to the shops as to me it looks like an advert for those shops. I think maybe the history of the old shopping mall is more notable than the current mall particularly with reference to concrete cancer, the former occupiers of the office block, the way it acquired planning permission in the first place (i.e. the deal that was struck between P&O and the local council), the old shops that were demolished, the crane that collapsed during construction etc etc. All it needs is more impartial editing. (Less pro-v-anti mall) which hopefully might include reference to the good and the bad impact it has had on the local economy.Nicole 50dc 17:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Change of mind. To be factually accurate the shopping mall is called 'DrakeCircus' as evidenced by their logo and the signage on their building. The reason the developers did not add a space between Drake and Circus was to avoid confusion with the existing shopping centre within the Drake Circus area.Nicole 50dc 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And your evidence that they did this is what? Are you sure it's not just a design element? All publicity mentions and every reference to the place on their own website is Drake Circus Shopping Center (c/w space). That doesn't seem to me to be either demonstrating a desire to separate the two or to demonstrate that it's actually "drakecircus Shopping Centre" or are you attempting to show that the lowercase wording is significant too?  WebHamste r  22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the banner image of their entrance sign. All the signs throughout their building are similarily labelled 'DrakeCircus'. (I note www.Drake-circus.com. and all other 'Drake-circus' TLD's are still available)Nicole 50dc 22:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the same design element as in their logo. You have heard of maintaining design elements across different media haven't you? As regards the TLDs, so what, you will find that most company names in domain names forego the space, the rest of the supposition is an other example of your propensity for WP:SYNTH. I'd recommend that you look for written proof rather than images that contain elements of graphic design. Once again I note the absence of proof for another of your assertions.  WebHamste r  23:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hamster, on 19:22, 5 November 2007 (see above) you were done with [this SPA's] obtuse trolling. I don't know about you, but I'm still done with it, and I suspect most people are too. -- Hoary 23:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I couldn't find my Yo-yo :P  WebHamste r  23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect and merge its content back into a trimmed-down Drake Circus from whence it was recently split - see the Drake Circus AfD and my comments on that article's talk page. One article can easily cover the contents of these two minor and related topics. --Smalljim 09:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. See above - further research on Drake Circus has persuaded me that it is a notable feature of the city in its own right, though the current article is inaccurate. See my draft rewrite of that article here. So a merge would not be appropriate. --Smalljim 12:19, 8 November 2007 (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.