Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basildon Town Centre

Basildon Town Centre

Basildon Town Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Leviathan lists with two blue links? This looks like a joke. WP is not a directory of not notable shops. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete, a long table of which shops existed at e.g. 28, East Walk, Basildon and other Basildon adresses throughout the years is not a topic fit for Wikipedia; it doesn't helpm in navigation (as the individual shops aren't notable) and isn't as a whole a notable topic either. Fram (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason for this is show the changing face of the town centre or high street in the Uk. I am in the process of completing the first link - basildon and have several further town centres to add that I have researched it is just the time I need to add them. I aim to research as many town centres as I can. You say they are not notable, but the changing face is shown (which is notable) by the type of retailers that once occupied the town centre, from small local companies to the rather faceless corporate towns we now have. It also shows the changing face of the products on offer - TV rental shops use to be a regular fixture on every UK high street but are no longer seen. So are photography shops. It will also show the gradual departure from town centres of hardwear and electrical retailers. All of this are notable changes in society and are part of social history which should be documented. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which by definition is a book or books giving information. This is information which is useful to social historians, but is also not recorded elsewhere and would be lost without it being recorded --User:Davidstewartharvey — Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidstewartharvey (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Per the above. And if it were not deleted, all the non-anchor tenants should be removed in any case (the substance of this article), per WP:TENANTS. Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Yes, this is interesting and it is a useful record for social historians. However, this isn't suitable for Wikipedia which is a general purpose, global encyclopaedia. There is some good research that has gone into this and it would be a shame if this is not made available somewhere - it may be suitable at Wikiversity but I'm not familiar enough with that project to say for definite. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. As a 1950s New Town, the 1950s-1970s shopping area will almost certainly be design notable, even if it is also a certain architectural failure like all of them. There is nothing in the article at the moment about the town centre's physical structure, but that is a content issue. Someone needs to dig up some old issues of AJ or AR. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A very brief hunt for sources confirms to me that there are more than enough sources and content to justify an article titled Basildon Town Centre. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsupported suppositions as to design-worthiness don't carry much weight at AfD. Do you have evidence of RS refs that meet GNG or another criterion? Epeefleche (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry - I had assumed a minimum standard of education was a requirement to edit, and so a need to state the obvious was not needed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The references section of this [1] cites a number of contemporary sources indicating the design importance of Basildon Town Centre. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as listcruft that serves no purpose, Merge & Prose (to Basildon) is far more appropriate if that's preferred. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment.Merge Suggestion The article on Eastgate Shopping Centre (Basildon) was originally called Basildon Town Centre before it was renamed. For those unfamiliar Eastgate refers to part of the shopping centre (the indoor bit) whereas really we need an article on the whole shopping centre rather than part of it. The obvious answer would be to merge this with Eastgate and rename while continuing to work on the article and expand. Too sensible? 92.0.165.228 (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Eastgate Shopping Centre is NOT Basildon Town Centre. Even the most cursory google search should have informed you of that. Eastgate, from the 1980s, is a shopping mall. Basildon Town Centre is from the late 1950s to early 1970s and was constructed as the New Town was constructed and is an example of 1950s-1960s town planning. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Erm. I never said Eastgate=Town Centre and given I live in Basildon I'm quite familiar with the area. What I'm saying is that there should be an article called Basildon Town Centre covering the whole shopping area including Eastgate and including things like the Westgate development. The Eastgate article should be moved here. The distinction between Eastgate and the Town Centre shops is completely artificial in my humble opinion. 92.0.165.228 (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)