Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopping in Leeds


 * 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 delete. Katietalk 11:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Shopping in Leeds

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Whole article is written like a retail guide. Highly unsourced and no notable content (anything content that may be slightly notable is better suited for merging to the Leeds article) Ajf773 (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   08:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe Transwiki to Leeds and trim down there. Chickadee46 (talk&#124;contribs) (WP:MCW) 15:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination proposes merger and that is not achieved by deletion – see WP:MAD. The topic is notable and so easy to improve – see Sport, Leisure and Culture in the Postmodern City. Andrew D. (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Patently unencylopaedic – Wikipedia is not a travel guide – and promotional in tone. Only one source. Joe Roe (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I'm still not seeing how this is convincingly its own substantially notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  00:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an analysis, not a retail guide: a retail guide lists every establishment, or at least all those that pay for coverage. Rather, this is analogous but not as well developed as articles such as Shopping in Hong Kong. Shopping is an important economic and cultural activity of a city (along with being a defensible site and an administrative center, it's one of the 3 basic reason why there are cities. An encyclopedia must stay clear of promotionalism, m, but still must cover commercial topics. This is a good way to do it. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Shopping in Hong Kong appears to be much the same format as this AFD as well as Articles for deletion/Shopping in Manchester, the history section is about the only notable section in the entire article and this could easily be merged or re-directed. As far as I'm concerned this particular article has little to no notability, as it stands it hasn't yet been demonstrated. Ajf773 (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not yellow pages. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  03:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. DGG makes a cogent argument why an article about retail commerce in a major city could be a viable encyclopedia topic, but this article isn't it.  It's a compendium of what retail stores happen to exist today.  Call it IAR if you want, but I just don't see this as being the kind of article we want.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No grounds to be an independent encyclopedia article. As WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2016 (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.