Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westmoreland Place Shopping Precinct, Bromley


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Westmoreland Place Shopping Precinct, Bromley

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Derild 49  21  ☼  00:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I cleaned it up a bit, but it still is quite messy and hard to read. A Heymann improvement is needed to change my vote. --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I userfied a previous version instructing the author to provide references. Instead they repost and merely add trivia. &mdash; RHaworth 00:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with this article? This was a genuine place and I disagree that it is messy and hard to read, it is basically a discription of the building with a list of all the shops that were there what references would you like? I can add them if you like. I didn't see your message about adding more referances but there are a lot of articles with less referances.  FYI about 99.9% of Wikipedia is trivia
 * Sources are needed, but they have to follow WP:RS. Also it is the fact that all it has is a description is why i put it up for deletion. Articles must have encyclopedic value. Sections such as history and others would keep it from deletion. Derild  49  21  ☼  00:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No encyclopedic value. Agree with User:Derild4921 that history, or other significance is needed to keep this alive. First of its type? Architecture by Frank Lloyd Wright? (those are examples of the kind of thing needed). --Quartermaster (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete.This is non notable. It has no references and that is a symptom of how trivial the subject is. Seriously "Unit 1 Barclays Bank (1967 - 1993)"  who cares, who has the time to dig through whatever archive that this fact is buried in who else would ever check them should someone do so?  Hence original research to boot.Dejvid (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the fact it was a BT phone exchange and the first shopping centre in Bromley not good enough? Or that it had a sub post office? I have seen thousands of articles with no value or referances whatsoever and they have not been taken down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmseven (talk • contribs) 13:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are thousands of articles with no value or references whatsoever that have not been taken down. That's not a defense of keeping this article, it's a description of the size of the task those of us involved in cleaning up wikipedia are facing. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not about being first, or last, or worst, or one among thousands. It's about being documented, in depth, by multiple independent reliable sources.  Where is this subject already documented by the world?  (If you think that there are other articles for not actually documented subjects in Wikipedia, point them out.  Do your research properly first, though.  It's not enough to just read the article, or have a guess.) Uncle G (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Shopping centers of this minor nature are not notable, unless there is some special reason, and the attendance of some stars at the opening of a shop there is not special enough. We to use the word, notability, rather than merely unreferenced to indicated that the references had to be about something worth the inclusion.    DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge the first two paragraphs (only) to Bromley or the bit of Bromley where it is or was. The rest is non-encyclopaedic.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Although "first shopping centre in Bromley" has a possibility of making it WP:Notable, like Uncle G said...It's about being documented. Find a reliable citation for that and we might have something worth holding on to. Until that point, this very PRO-Shopping Center editor has to go with Delete. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 19:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying it is "pro shopping centre" is dumb, it would be like saying that the wikipedia entry is pro wikipedia. The article is about a shopping centre and so it obviously mentions it is a shopping centre, it is probably more pro phone company too as BT is mentioned and even more pro Bromley because it mentiones it is in Bromley.  Also how can many of you say this artical does not comply to Heymann standards when your own wikipedia articles on your usernames dont comply to Heymann standards their self.  Not all things can be varified via the internet because the internet was not as popular before the building was renovated in 1996 and so there were the 3 references added.  Also where are the references I have come accross some one's articale who had horse pictures on their profile but there was no references to say they were horses, they are obviously horses but there is no backup references to show it, just as the current RBS building at Westmoreland Place is obviously there, it is over 10 floors and many people pass it when passing through Bromley South station but just because there is not a website referencing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmseven (talk • contribs) 18:52, 3 September 2010 (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.