Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of leading shopping streets and districts by city


 * 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. Problems with the inclusion criteria or content issues can be handled by the standard editorial process. Shereth 17:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

List of leading shopping streets and districts by city

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Violates WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:V. One of those broad unsourced lists that has no criteria of entry, and it seems like every street with stores, or any mall can qualify, making it unmaintainable as well. Delete Secret account 16:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP is not a collector of links, nor an indiscriminate collector of information --Saalstin (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT, cited by both people so far, prohibits 4 things: Plot-only description of fictional works, Lyrics databases, Excessive listing of statistics and News reports. So clearly that doesn't apply here. WP:V demands only that sources exist, not that they be cited in the article this very moment, although that's preferable. Do sources exist saying Fifth Avenue, Rodeo Drive, etc are "leading shopping districts"? Obviously. It just might be synthesis to compile a bunch of stray articles into one Wikipedia article claiming what the top shopping districts are, but there actually are articles written and studies done on this very topic: Cushman & Wakefield for example does an annual study of the top shopping streets worldwide. This article doesn't cite sources, it's true, but they seem to be out there and relatively easy to find, so improve the article and keep it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For someone who was lightning fast to quote the "arguments to avoid at AFD" essay in another debate, you sure run afoul of WP:PERNOMINATOR a lot... why should your comment be given any weight? It's not even a comment... it's an attempt to vote. --Chiliad22 (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you have your underwear in a bunch because I disagree with you on another AFD doesn't mean you need to follow me around and add pointless comments. "per nom" means that I agree with the rationale of the nominator and don't see a need to re-type the same crap over again. And closers are bright enough to understand that. If you want to continue with your personal comments, take it to my talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How could I possibly be following you around if I commented in this AFD 4 hours before you? And in lieu of typing "the same crap over again", now that I've contradicted every one of the nominator's points, you could explain why you still thought the article should be deleted... --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But your comment about my !vote came AFTER you and I disagreed in another AfD earlier. So you came back here and attacked my post. That is what I mean about "following". As I said before, if you want to keep discussing your personal opinions about how I choose to word my vote, please take it to my talk page. As for this AfD, I don't feel you have adequately "contradicted" them, so I won't be changing my opinion at this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I had replied to your comment in the other AFD days ago. You made and continue to make weak arguments here - what do you feel was inadequate about my argument here? Just saying "nuh uh" doesn't do much, you have to articulate why. If you can't defend your weak arguments at AFD, and get angry when you are expected to be able to... maybe you shouldn't be leaving weak arguments at AFD. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted my response to you at 16:56. You put your comment here at 17:15. Now I conceed that math was not my major in college, but it is still pretty clear that you posted your response here AFTER I replied to you in the other AfD. The fact that you make a reference to my response in that AfD confirms that. Further, I'm not "angry". I'd actually have to care about your opinion of me or of my !vote to be angry about it. Feel free to continue playing the sound of one hand clapping because I will not continue this pointless back and forth with you in this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted in both AFDs before you, it's simply impossible that I'm following you around. I always watch AFDs I have commented in. This is like going to a store, seeing a guy who works there 9 to 5 every day, and saying "ah hah! you're stalking me!". You can make the argument but I doubt anyone will believe it. I see you still have no explanation of why my argument about this article is insufficient... presumably the closer will discount your opinion then, given your utter lack of any explanation. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup, add a reference for each street.   A M M A R   08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the criteria for inclusion is vauge, vast, subjective and relative to the culture, size and affluence of a place. Some of the entries on the list contradict the criteria - e.g. if only the largest cities have more than two at most such areas, why are there three distinct areas in Cardiff (only the 14th most populous city in the UK). It does not normally distinguish between adjacent streets with similar character (e.g. Bristol) and distinct areas within a large metropolitan area (e.g. Birmingham). Where it does distinguish it does this in multiple ways (e.g. compare London and Cardiff). Finally, without any sources the whole thing smacks of original research. If there is value in a list like this (and I'm not convinced there is, although well defined and sourced lists for metropolitan areas within a country might have merit) then it will be much easier to start again with soruces that demonstrate the entries meet the well-defined objective criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this topic is obviously going to continue to have world-famous shopping streets like Bond Street and Orchard Road upon it. Deleting the list and starting again would be a silly waste of effort. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A global list with sensible criteria would obviously include those two streets. However those same criteria would exclude many if not most of the current entries on the list, which are nowhere near as notable. I do not agree that there should be a global list though, because I do not believe that it would be possible to have such a list that had both globally neutral objective criteria for inclusion and was not unweildy. What characterises an "upscale" or "leading" shopping street is so bound to the culture, laws, fashion, size and affluence of the city, region, country and those surrounding it that the criteria for London, Adis Ababa, Singapore, Athens, Moscow, Los Angeles, Edinburgh, Bunos Aries, etc. would all have to be different. Lists by country would be more objectively definable and probably more encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article presents a viable amount of information, although should be revised and be more in-depth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LOctopus (talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep User:Chiliad22 has done a good job of researching the matter and this shows that the list may be improved in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any work being done on the article to make me change my mind, almost none of my concerns are met. Secret logged out 147.70.112.117 (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Now shown to be sourceable.DGG (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2009 (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.