Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gates 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 keep. there is no consensus to delete the content, and move/merge can be handled editorially Star   Mississippi  03:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The Gates Shopping Centre

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The Gates Shopping Centre has very minimal primary sources, and this is unlikely to change as the complex has being demolished. The current sources are insufficient to support the complex being of significance: Source 1 is no longer working and has no usable archive, source 2 has a working archive but is a single line and sources 3-10 discuss the new complex built on the same, with different owners. I have checked Google, Google News & Google Scholar’s and from the few sources I’ve been able to find, 1 was a planning application for the new complex and another was a developer for the new complex. The rest is primarily made up of directory links for stores previously in the complex. GeekBurst (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. GeekBurst (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The coverage of the redevelopment makes it notable. Properties do not lose notability if they are being redeveloped. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

GeekBurst (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * : There’s tons of malls that have been demolished and had news articles about what was built on the site, but that doesn’t then make the mall itself notable. There’s practically no evidence of it existing other than the news it was getting demolished. The redevelopment is a completely different project, witg new owners which just happens to include retail. I struggle to see why this specific mall isn’t [WP:RUNOFTHEMILL]. There’s no media coverage of the existing development to help expand the article either.


 * Keep, online you can find some more sources that are not present in the article, for example here. Sahaib (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Move to The Riverwalk- I doubt that the former Gates Shopping Mall is notable (WP:RUNOFTHEMILL), and the majority of the coverage is merely in passing- there appears to have been enough coverage regarding its redevelopment to make the new entity (The Riverwalk) notable. Considering that the Riverwalk appears to inherit quite a bit of the Ex-Gates Shopping Centre's buildings, this might be the best option to deal with this article.  Padgriffin  Griffin's Nest 11:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Move and leave a redirect. 's suggestion is eminently sensible, creating a useful joint article on the present and past history of the shopping centre on this site, and if we include a redirect, then anyone who is looking for the Gates in its previous existence will find themselves in the right place. Elemimele (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is a personal essay and not policy. It has also been deemed inapplicable to shopping malls in previous discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment How does The Gates meet the notability guidelines listed in WP:NBUILD? There isn’t ‘significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.’. The sources currently referenced primarily discuss The Riverwalk, a separate development built on the same site.
 * I fail to see how the loose reference to ‘The Gates’ makes the former complex notable? This article has been up for almost 15 years and hasn’t managed to expand beyond a handful of sentences. There’s no history or past developments to discuss, only the current situation which is that it’s been refurbished/partly demolished. It would be much more suitable to create an article about the new development and make a brief mention of the site history.
 * I have previously queried about adding information on The Riverwalk to this article and have been told that it would be against best practice, as it’s discussing a different complex. So how can articles about the new complex be used as a way to prove the original was notable?
 * As I previously stated, I fail to see how the news of a complex being demolished, makes said complex notable.
 * There are no primary sources discussing the centre itself when it was active, only those from when it was demolished. An alternative option to a deletion, and if making a ‘The Riverwalk’ page wasn’t agreed upon would be to add The Gates to the main Durham article, as I fail to see the need of an article for a couple sentences. GeekBurst (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Consensus on move/merge target? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk &#124; contribs) 03:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Merge I think it shouldnt be deleted but merged, not exactly sure what it would be merged with . It could be merged with the main city article under the ecomony section with a subtitle redevelopments such as what happened over on this article, and if anyone finds any more redevelopments that could be noted they can all go in one place since alone there is nothing really notable about the mall, other than it got redeveloped to some small shops. -- Jade (Talk) •  they/them  18:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Note, I fully decided on my decision after the fact so edited this comment
 * Move/merge Agree with 's suggestion, or merge into main Durham article. Paul W (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with Durham,_England: After taking on board the feedback from others in the discussion, I think The Gates along with the new Riverwalk development would be suited to a discussion in an economy or developments section of the main Durham article. GeekBurst (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or move. Durham, England is over 100,000 bytes, it absolutely does not need any more content stuffed into it. NemesisAT (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do note that - but that doesn’t mean we should have articles for a few sentences. Would a suitable solution be having an ‘Economy of Durham’ article? GeekBurst (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with having an article only a few sentences long? Sure, that could be a solution but that article should be created before this one is meged. NemesisAT (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge with Durham,_England GeekBurst (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2022 (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.