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 as non-notable street, and create redirect to Drake Circus Shopping Centre. Sandstein 20:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Circus[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Drake Circus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A non-notable small sub-district that isn't much more than a roundabout in Plymouth. It doesn't appear to have any historical or geographical significance. The article was primarily created by a local to disenfranchise the term "Drake Circus" from a nearby controversial shopping mall (Drake Circus Shopping Centre). The talk page has attracted a lot of attention by trolls, vandals and disgruntled students and locals, as a result the article required semi-protecting. In spite of all the rhetoric there has been no attempt at providing proof of notability per WP:N using WP:RS. The small area contains some run down shops, part of Plymouth University a church cum war memorial and a museum and art gallery which are all irrelevant to the article's notability due to non-inheritance of notability. gHits of any note are minimal, the search term being sidelined by the shopping mall. What's left is either non-independent or trivial. -- WebHamster 19:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Keep. I've taken the unusual step of putting this late vote at the top because the whole article has just been replaced with a fully-referenced and I believe uncontroversial version. The only issue that would remain is notability, and I think that's shown now. Smalljim 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*keep

• This is a bad faith nomination Talk:Drake_Circus_Shopping_Centre
• The Drake Circus areais home to the Faculties of Health & Social Work, Social Science & Business, Science and Technology, and part of the Faculty of Arts and the Peninsula Medical School. As you can see from a mapit includes the Drake's reservoir Drake reservoir and theMusuem and art gallery

It has an immense history which users have been blocked from adding to this article by those wishing to promote a nearby shopping mall. For example in 1881 snow on Sheepstor caused the most severe water shortage ever experienced in Plymouth. Records of 29th January show that there was no water in the leat or the reservoirs at Crownhill and Hartley. There was only three inches in the Drake’s reservoir, which was reserved for fire. There had been no domestic supply for the previous three days. Its reservoir once fed by a In the wall above the now disused conduit, which was rebuilt in 1671 is the inscription ‘Made in the Maioraltie of John Trelawnye 1598’. Above this are the Arms of and crests of Drake history of Drake Resevoir The area includes one of the largest universities in the UK

• as for gHits are minimal and 'run-down' shops if we refer to google and for example search 'uk silver jewellery' there are globally 3,230,000 sites. The consistent number one site is a domain of a shop in Drake Circus who sold their previous domain www.plymouth-england.com to arespected local historian. What reference or verification is given to the claim that it has some "run down shops".
• over a long period attempts by anybody to publish a true and accurate account of 'drake circus' have been systematically vandalised with legitimate references constantly being deleted.2007 copyright chris robinson81.155.65.71 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• — 81.155.65.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

---

keep The image by chris robinsonshows Drake Circus. The building on the right still stands today occupied by the agents fulfords maybe shown more clearly at [1] As for run down Drake Circus has benefited from extensive investment over the past five years. I am sure I speak for many that we would like the opportunity of adding and expanding this article but all attempts at doing so over the past 6 months have been met with fierce resistance and blockings of accounts. The motive behind this request for deletion is a vindictive desire to stamp out the truth for the benefit of creating internet presence of a commercial enterprise.Nicole 50dc 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Which image on the BBC website are you referring to? (picture 1 is a different building, it's a similar shape but it looks different and is in the wrong location, compare with picture 3 in the same gallery, then compare pictures 3 and 7. Which pedestrian street is in the picture? Snigbrook 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to image 1 (the illustration by chris Robinson) which (i think) shows the musuem/library on the right, which means you are looking up to the current Drake Circus area. The Fulfords image shows their buidling which is further up. Either way the images show not 'all' the Edwardian buidlings were flattened in the blitz.Nicole 50dc 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The building on the left of image 1 looks like the building with the Guinness sign in image 3 - all the other pictures in the same gallery are in that area. If that's the case then it's the corner of Old Town Street and Ebrington Street (on the map at [2]), and has been demolished, although it is possible that it's a different building. Snigbrook 01:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will invite Chris Robinson to answer that as I must admit I am little confused as to what building it is. I think what is irritating the locals (particularly the older ones) is that it was the developers who originally disenfranchised the term "Drake Circus" from the locals and not the other way round although I really do not want to get embroiled in that war again.Nicole 50dc 16:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Keep that the location is run down does not mean that the article needs be deleted. This seems a real, notable neighborhood in a city, and thus seems inherently notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*keep Whether it is a Street, road, district or whatever is immaterial. It is an area with some notable pre-war and post war history attached to it.86.151.170.3 13:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep like with the other article, the attempt to delete this one seems an effort to avoid the difficulty of writing NPOV articles under harassment from local people with a POV. . There seems to be some local dispute involving the relative importance of the neighborhood, the shopping center , and the town or the university. I think both articles are viable enough. DGG (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that I personally think it's non-notable, my prime motive for bringing the AfD is partly to get a wider audience discussing its viability and partly to put paid to the dissent on the talk page. Additionally there's been a notability tag on the article for a bit now. A properly run AfD will put paid to all these things in one go... at least theoretically anyway. There has been plenty of time for people to add info to this article as it's been there for a year. It's only been semi protected for 2 days. All the IPs had to do was register an account, wait 4 days and they could have added the required info. Instead they preferred to use disruptive tactics instead. This isn't a bad faith nomination, it's to try to get things sorted once and for all. As I put on the talk page, it will either survive this AfD or it won't. If it is indeed noteable then it will give someone a kick in the ass to prove it instead of whining about it. That fact that it's semi-protected is immaterial, info could have been placed on the talk page by IPs for us to include it. In spite of the shouters' complaints there have been plenty of additions to the article as well as deletions. The history is there to see, there is no cadre conspiring to wipe it from the face of Wikipedia. If there were justifiable additions then they would have been included. As you can see from the talk page plenty of offers were made, but no-one took us up on them. ---- WebHamster 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully accept your motivation--it was a little hard to figure out otherwise. Thanks for the clarification,03:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I've just asked the admin who protected it to remove the semi-protection from the Drake Circus page to allow the user currently known as Nicole 50dc the opportunity to edit the page that he feels so strongly about. It seems inequitable to consider deletion when the creator of the page has had only a short time in which he could edit it. He seems to be almost the only remaining active user/IP from those 20 or so socks etc. that disrupted this article and the adjacent Drake Circus Shopping Centre one - (its AfD). I would like to think that, having learned from the experience gained from the other AfD in which he participated copiously, he will now add content to this article responsibly, and, having had that opportunity, will accept the consensus as to its fate (whatever that may be). Smalljim 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Nicole 50dc 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short time? The article was created in October 2006 by User:Burbidget who hasn't taken part in the dissent and/or afd. ---- WebHamster 23:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a series of edits by our old friend Yiwentang (now blocked) on 30 October 2007, culminating in this one [3] that started this disagreement. When I spotted it I copied the last pre-Yiwentang version of this article over to the shopping centre one [4] as a compromise. So I suppose that means this is all my fault… Smalljim 23:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I summarily sentence you to a week in a tent right in the centre of Drake Circus :P ---- WebHamster 23:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! The road or the shopping centre? 'night. Smalljim 23:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment'Thank you although it remains blocked to me. I particularly wanted to publish images with an account of the long lost and concealed entrance to the Portland Square Bomb Shelter in Drake Circus where so many children lost their lives. In April 2008, on the 67th anniversary of the tragedy a memorial will be held for all those killed in the Portland Square, Drake Circus bomb shelter however maybe I should wait until after the event.Nicole 50dc 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• — Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Would that be under your own name or as 81.155.65.71? ---- WebHamster 01:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's nothing to stop you uploading the pictures any time you like, you aren't blocked from doing that. Please also bear in mind that WP:NOT#NEWS ---- WebHamster 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just been unprotected. Please behave reasonably! I'm off to bed now, hope to see the makings of a great article by tomorrow morning. --Smalljim 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Recent research by Smalljim and outlined on Talk:Drake Circus#Sub-district shows that Drake Circus isn't actually an official area at all. As best we can figure it, officially, Drake Circus is just the name of a road and part of a roundabout. It's not an officially designated council district, it's not an officially designated postal district. Seemingly it's just a local nickname for an arbitrary area around the road itself. So far, after protection was removed, there seems to be no serious attempt at establishing notability by the outspoken supporters of the article. There have been additions to the article of a similarly named reservoir which ran out of water once and a bomb shelter that was bombed once, but nothing that could be interpreted as notable per WP:N. ---- WebHamster 02:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The large multi-million pound Plymouth business schoolis next door to 50@Drake Circus and as you can see its postal address is clearly 'Drake Circus'. So indeed is the landmark money centre building orthe voodoo lounge which are two or three streets away. If it were just a street or roundabout the council (and post office) would have a sign that says 'Drake Circus Street' or 'Place' or 'Road' or whatever. Instead it is signposted 'Drake Circus'. I hope to upload more images and content over the next 48 hours. In the meantime maybe worth noting that most old (and some modern) maps of London do not officially recognise Chinatown,_London so does that article likewise have no right to be here.Nicole 50dc 14:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Drake Circus is the street name whether you like it or not, it doesn't need a road or street suffix to be considered to be either. Just because a firm or building gives itself an area name does not mean that area name is official. The mail gets there because the local sorting office knows where it is. Given the accusations of WP:COI from yourself and others with regard to DCSC you seem remarkably keen on trotting out the Midas Homes link at every opportunity. What other articles do or don't do is immaterial to this discussion as you have already been told. Meanwhile if you can come up with an official definition of Drake Circus being an area as opposed to a road then please do so, until then it's merely original research and synthesis and is meaningless to WP. Just for those who haven't read Smalljim's research, even the road name hasn't been there all that long (relatively speaking). Apparently it was changed from Tavistock Street to Drake Circus just after WWII. Even now it's only a section of a road as it becomes North Hill a short way along its length. So far nothing has pointed to the area being notable. Photographs of the street and descriptions of empty 19th century reservoirs and bombed bomb shelters does not a notable area make. ---- WebHamster 15:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt you will ever be able to verify the area sign was changed from Tavistock Street to Drake Circus just after WWII. Even if it were remotely true then by your own admission it makes the sign at least 60+ years old!Nicole 50dc 02:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the web pages being cited for the bomb shelter only mention Portland Square, there is no mention at all of Drake Circus. Likewise the reservoir citation also makes no mention of Drake Circus. This being the case it's looking like these two sections need to be deleted. ---- WebHamster 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tragedy was "in the vicinity of the Planeteriumwhich is in "...Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA.."Nicole 50dc 03:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For photographs of buildings you need permission from the architect, not just the photographer. IANAL & IMHO, these pictures cannot by licensed under GFDL of Creative Commons, without permission of the architect.[5] Two of them have come through so i hope to publish them within 12 hours. It has already been established that Portland Square falls within Drake Circus."Hepworth House, Portland Villas, Drake Circus,plymouth or professor in analytical chemistry,A429,portland square development,drake circus,plymouth,Devon,PL4 8AA. I cannot upload any more detail due to the constant edit conflicts caused by your incessant disruption.Nicole 50dc 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the midashome reference was only added to the discussion page to rebut the suggestion the building fell outside the drake circus area. I have absolutely no commercial interest in that or any other organization and if you think links are spammy remove them. My only concern is to further academic knowledge and research whilst ensuring factual history or geography is not distorted for the benefit of a shopping mallNicole 50dc 17:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic digression collapsed

Off-topic digression collapsed ---- WebHamster 02:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Collapsed section reduced because it included some relevant comments --Smalljim 10:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Please read the article you quoted properly "The copyright act does not, however, prevent anyone from taking or painting pictures of any building visible from a public place, or displaying such pictures." You aren't publishing plans or blueprints. You are taking snaps from a public thoroughfare, it's perfectly legal to do so without anyone's permission. If you wish to waste your time making the effort then go right ahead, but do not make statements that other people may construe as law. My "incessant disruption" as you call it, and I remind you of WP:CIVIL, are correcting your basic errors, spelling mistakes and various other mistakes. If you don't wish to read WP:MOS or WP:EL then fair enough, but do not insult other people who have done so and are correcting your mistakes. Either get it right or accept that there are others who will make it right for you ---- WebHamster 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The reference actually says "The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act, passed in 1990, extended copyright protection to architectural works unless the building was constructed or the plans to the building were otherwise published before Dec. 1, 1990. Courts have generally agreed that all buildings not yet substantially complete as of Dec. 1, 1990, are covered by the act." Few of the notable buildings in Drake Circus were built or designed before 1990 (neither was the mall).How others construe the Law is their choice. My choice is not take the risk and its reference is to explain my choice and the reason why no images have been published yet. It was not intended as any form of legal advice or warning. I have made few if any spelling mistakes that i have not corrected myself.Nicole 50dc 18:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] This is beyond the purview of this AfD, but I didn't make that quote up, it was from the very article you linked to. Blame them not me. Like I said, if you wish to waste your time then feel free. As regards your mistakes, the history is there for all to see, both your mistakes and my corrections, "vodoo longue" anyone? ---- WebHamster 18:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] For example property releases reinforce my fears (I know it’s contentious but I am not prepared to take the risk)and explains why I have not published all the images yet. Please bear in mind I have only been able to edit this article for less than two days which in itself was only created a few days beforehand by Smalljim.Nicole 50dc 23:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] And I quote from that page "Definitions courtesy of American Society of Media Photographers." You are in the UK, the buildings are in the UK. QED. [End of troll buffet]. ---- WebHamster 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I said 'for example'.( If you must know i was referring to the crucial issue of where the images are first published. i.e. the US - this page is being served from a US based server.) however i do not want to cloud this issue with a legal matter. The only point I want to make is that I have not as yet published all the images relating to Drake Circus.Nicole 50dc 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above discussion is at ALL about the status of this article WRT to deletion/keeping. This entire page is being used as a proxy for a discussion that should happen ONLY on the talk page of the article in question. Let's keep the discussion here about the status of this article with regard to guidelines/policies such as notability and verifiability and original research. All other discussions, such as those related to the content of said article, should happen on the article talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, from what I can see in the links provided, this is a shopping center and not a neighborhood or district. Regardless, it is unverified original research (calling a shopping center a district with that collection of sources is blatant OR synthesis), and there do seem to be conflict of interest problems as WebHamster indicates. The closing admin should consider ignoring several SPA arguments above that assume bad faith against the AFD nominator, and established users arguing to keep should strongly reexamine this situation. --Coredesat 22:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This also seems to be a POV fork of Drake Circus Shopping Centre. --Coredesat 22:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reviewing the rewrite, my argument is still to delete, as a non-notable street. --Coredesat 23:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, synthesis for a place that doesn't exist. The confusion in this page, the articles and their talks seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the two uses of "Drake Circus". Drake Circus Shopping Centre is exactly what it says it is. However, there is no district by that name, merely a street. The street of Drake Circus (which is the real subject of this article) is not notable by itself. Regarding the oddities in addresses: The Moneycentre appears to be a street away, but when the roundabout existed was adjacent to it. The Shopping Centre's address is Bretonside as its main entrance is actually on the street Bretonside. All mail to the University goes through an office which is situated on Drake Circus, hence why the whole campus appears to be in "Drake Circus".--Nilfanion (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably more of a shopping area than a district, and it seems to me that most of it was demolished and replaced by the shopping centre and roundabout (btw, the new shopping centre's address is Charles Street, not Bretonside, and the old one was apparently 'Eastlake Walk'). Snigbrook 02:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and question/request: I wish "my" library had a copy of Pevsner and Cherry's Buildings of Devon or indeed anything authoritative about Plymouth. It doesn't, and no library that does is within easy reach. As it is, I have to rely on dribs and drabs in individual web pages, and also "plymouthdata.info", which lacks any obvious academic credential but does seem to have been assembled very conscientiously and disinterestedly. The latter site doesn't have a page on Drake Circus, but it does have a couple of pages on the "Blitz": Blitz.htm on March '41 and Blitz2.htm on April '41. The former includes a photograph of a building on fire in Drake Circus. The latter doesn't mention Drake Circus but does talk of the hit on an air-raid shelter that's described in the WP article as "nearby Portland Square". This kind of thing is compatible with the notion, suggested above, that Drake Circus is merely the combination road and roundabout; perhaps a significant road, but no more. Now, if this is indeed the extent of its formal recognition, it would not be surprising if it were also informally used to mean an area. But I haven't seen any convincing sign of this. Plymouthdata.info says little more about it, but of course it's hard to say whether this is because there's little else to say, because the author hasn't yet got around to it, or simply because what can be said about it doesn't happen to interest the author. So let's instead turn to finished (and respected) books, rather than works in the making. What do Pevsner and Cherry say? What does Pevsner say (in Devon or South Devon) about pre-"development" Drake Circus? What do other authoritative books say? Off to your libraries, ladies and gents. -- Hoary 01:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lucky me - I have copies of both Pevsner and Cherry's Devon and the original South Devon. Neither of them says anything significant, though. There are entries in the later work for the museum (I used this as a ref in Plymouth City Museum and Art Gallery), the then Polytechnic (which would belong in Plymouth University) and the Moneycentre. Also mentions of Sherwell House and Queen Anne Terrace etc. There's more about North Hill: not surprising because it's much longer. The Edwardian roundabout with the Guinness Clock was demolished before the later much-expanded edition was revised, so there's nothing about that, but nothing in the original either. I spent half an hour in Plymouth local studies library earlier in the week, but it wasn't long enough, I only really confirmed that the road was called Tavistock Road until at least 1955. // I should perhaps clarify here why this article exists at all: until 30 October it was the article about the shopping centre, but on that day it was hijacked by an SPA who rewrote it as a POV article about a "sub-district" of the same name. At the time the existence of such a sub-district seemed possible to me, so, apparently being the first to notice the change, I left it as it was and copied the pre-hijacked version over the existing redirect to at Drake Circus Shopping Centre. Then much vigorous discussion between the SPA and (mostly) WebHamster while I looked for evidence and built up an alternative article based on what I found. Then yesterday an attempt at compromise where I added parts of the SPA's article to my fork, and late last night copied it into main space. // Looked at dispassionately this morning, it should go, really - there's nothing to make it more notable than thousands of other city streets, unless we want article on all those too. Some do, I know. Smalljim 11:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the good work, Smalljim. -- Hoary 11:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Struck through prior vote. After further review, it does seem more and more that this really is a non-notable street, rather than a neighborhood, and also seems an inappropriate POV form from the shopping center article. Per the research done by Hoary above, it does appear that this street/neighborhood (if it may be called that) lacks any real independant sources to expand the article past the stub stage, and likley is non-notable.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, following Smalljim's (non-) findings. -- Hoary 11:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC) .... PS yes, as Smalljim suggests below, redirect to the article on the shopping centre. -- Hoary 01:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If the result is going to be delete, as now appears likely, can I suggest it should be redirect to Drake Circus Shopping Centre instead, because most people coming here looking for an article on the shopping centre would expect to find it under Drake Circus. Other existing redirects are Drake circus and Drakecircus. --Smalljim 11:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - some of the information could be useful for a Plymouth City Centre article, but I don't think Drake Circus needs an article of its own. Snigbrook 02:29, 11 November 2007 (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.