Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopping in Manchester

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. Katie^talk 11:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping in Manchester

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

Written as a retail guide WP:NOTGUIDE. Mostly cited by primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. Some appropriate sourced content more suited to be merged into other articles Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an all-purpose shopping registry. I am still amazed how all these "Shopping in XYZ" articles made it through the notability check. --Arbraxan (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work –– for example, it doesn't currently mention Kendal Milne or Lewis's which were big department stores. See Manchester's lost shops, Shopping Environments and Manchester: An Architectural History, which demonstrate the notability of the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Joe Roe (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing actually suggestively convincing of its own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 00:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a guide. — Music1201 ^talk 21:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an analysis, not a retail guide: a retail guide lists every establishment, or at least all those that pay for coverage. Rather , this is analogous but not as well developed as articles such as Shopping in Hong Kong. Shopping is an important economic and cultural activity of a city (along with being a defensible site and an administrative center, it's one of the 3 basic reason why there are cities. An encyclopedia must stay clear of promotionalism, m, but still must cover commercial topics. This is a good way to do it. DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What are we turning Wikipedia into, Yellow pages and shopping portal? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the same reasons I stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopping in Leeds -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2016 (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.