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 redirect to Aberdeen#Economy. If there is anything else to be merged, the history is there. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retail in Aberdeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Previously deleted on the grounds that WP:NOTTRAVEL. Db-repost denied by DGG because the article looks different, but the consensus in the last AfD was that the topic was not notable. There is only one other "Retail in ..." page on Wikipedia, itself questionable. Also, page is unsourced synthesis/original research. Abductive (reasoning) 21:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on same grounds as previous; perhaps merge substantive content into Aberdeen#Economy first. Then there is the related article: Future developments in Aberdeen, Scotland which possibly needs some attention as much of it is a speculative list of possible futures? AllyD (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article just needs development in accordance with our editing policy. One can immediately find good sources to support such improvement such as Aberdeen, 1800-2000. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One has to employ WP:SYNTHESIS to build the page. This material is better suited for Wikitravel. Abductive (reasoning) 22:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What nonsense. There is no synthetic position being advanced here - the topic is simply a straightforward account of retailing in this ancient town. I immediately find a great wealth of historical information which is so abundant that it is hard to know where to start. I have added a couple of details to the article as a sample. This is quite unsuitable for Wikitravel which is, in any case, a rival commercial project which we should not promote at our own expense. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The arguments made in the previous discussion still seem relevant. Most of the article is unreferenced, it includes speculation about future developments, and lists commercial establishments that are not of themselves notable. --Deskford (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So, we might simply keep the bits that are referenced and discard the rest. Or we might add references to support the contributions. Our editing policy requires that we make some effort to keep the good bits rather than trashing the whole thing indiscriminately. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC

• Good point, though I'm not sure the "good bits" would be enough to sustain an article in their own right. Better to merge them into Aberdeen#Economy as AllyD (talk · contribs) suggests above. --Deskford (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL and consensus at previous AfD. SnottyWong ^squeal 23:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A blatant WP:BATTLEGROUND violation methinks. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Colonel, I don't see how Snotty's comment is combative? What it is however, is WP:VAGUEWAVE (see comment below) —CodeHydro 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The timings indicated that neither Abductive not Snotty have done much more than glance at the article. Their positions seem to be based upon prejudice and the previous version rather than a proper consideration of the topic. I put a rescue tag on the article because I wanted some editors here who would actually look at the sources like Annals of Aberdeen - a quite detailed account of retailing activity two hundred years ago which is rich in historical detail. Snotty shows up immediately to vote against... Colonel Warden (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I did more than glance. I note that you have addressed the problem of WP:SYNTHESIS, but are instead proposing using 200 hundred years of primary sources to "rescue" the page. If you could provide secondary sources on the topic of Retail in Aberdeen, I would be more than willing to take a new look. Abductive (reasoning) 07:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Annals of Aberdeen is not a primary source: it is a history of the town over some seven hundred years. Other sources commend it as an excellent work and, as we are able to read it all and it is out of copyright, it seems an ideal source for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:NOTTRAVEL and the old AfD consensus are not applicable. Read the policy and you'll see it's basically an extension of WP:NOTDIR, telling people not to add every single store/hotel and their phone numbers and addresses in the city to the article; this article hardly describes any individual stores at all, and those few it mentions briefly are examples to help the reader understand without going into unnecessary detail. Moreover, the consensus at the previous AfD is moot since, according to the reviewing administrator DGG's comment when removing the G4 tag, this article is "totally different from previously deleted article." The fact that WP:NOTTRAVEL applied to the previous article but not this one shows that we're dealing with something of a different nature. As for me, I'd need time to check the sources before I say keep or not, though my impression is that this is probably worth keeping —CodeHydro 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename / Keep The name is not great, but it clearly is differentiated from "Aberdeen Economy" (which deals with how Aberdeen makes money from fishing, textiles and oil, and has nought to do with the markets in Aberdeen). It ought to possibly be renamed to be more specific than it is (maybe "Aberdeen market history and current"?) or the like - but that sort of argument should be on the article talk page. Colonel Warden is right on this one. Collect (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Serious referencing issues -- as in lack of. Also, intro sentence "Retail in Aberdeen takes place in shops, markets and other retailing facilities" leaves me scratching my head asking, "How the F is that notable? Aren't those the exact same sort of places that retails takes place in, oh, I don't know, everywhere else on Earth?" Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further: "Shopping Centres" section is basically a guide to the areas shopping malls. We're not a travel guide or a brochure. And the section "Future developments" is pretty much self-explanatory why that's gotta go, as we're not a crystal ball. That leaves the section dealing with the city's history as re retailing and I just don't see how that qualifies as notable: every city has had shops and markets throughout their histories and I don't see a reasonable argument for "History of retail of Des Moines, Iowa" as being notable so I don't see how Aberdeen qualifies. Bruges, Belgium, perhaps. Mtiffany71 (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Aberdeen#Economy: Some aspects of the retail sector of any large city are notable, and are usually found in either the locality article or articles for notable shopping malls, etc. I see this as simply an organization and content quality issue, and if "There is only one other 'Retail in ...' page on Wikipedia" I don't see a pressing need to start spinning off articles like this.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.