Deletion of Doncaster North services

Comment: per ,  and . This is hardly a major shopping complex, it's a service station with a few shops attached
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGUIDE||WP:NOTDIR||WP:GNG)

Comment: fails . When we deal with certain article subject areas, we presume notability. This is because editors have repeatedly determined that those subjects usually pass  or meet another one of Wikipedia's core functions, so it's been a fair assumption that the rest of the articles in that area will as well. That's why we have pages like  to document these general findings to forestall endless AfD discussions with the same results. This has been a good rule of thumb, but it comes with a corollary: when a specific article is shown to fail the GNG test, then that article loses the notability presumption and gets deleted.It's been mentioned above that Wikipedia has a gazetteer function. Since a motorway service area isn't a populated place, and traditional gazetteers lack extensive coverage of MSAs, this article can't avail itself of any exception to GNG for this Wikipedia function.Additionally, it may be time to revisit ROADOUTCOMES' statement that UK MSAs are generally notable based on recent AfDs and the demonstration above that it's based on presumptions flowing from just two flawed discussions long ago
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ROADOUTCOMES)

Comment: per : In the UK, motorway service areas are not considered to be equal to rest areas in the rest of the world and are generally kept as notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ROADOUTCOMES)

Comment: Clearly fails the ; what we're dealing with here is (ultimately) a run-of-the-mill shopping center. The claim in  about services clearly isn't good law given recent contrary AfDs and speedy deletions. It's meant to be descriptive, it doesn't carry the weight of policy, and it's inaccurate to boot. The claims about  must fail as well; if it applied to services where the population is 100% transient then ''every'' major (or minor) commercial complex would be presumptively notable, and this is not so.  is obviously the applicable guideline inasmuch as this is a complex of buildings, but that section requires significant coverage in line with the GNG, and none is on offer here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ROADOUTCOMES||WP:GEOLAND||WP:GEOFEAT)

Comment: that's for cities and villages, this is an "artificial geographic feature" so must pass 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOFEAT)

Comment: The references in the article fail  as do all the other sources I can find in my own searching
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: See , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination). This issue has been discussed extensively in the past and has been decided to keep all British motorway service areas. They are established by statute and are major complexes. They are not just "truck stops". It is not productive to delete a single example, when there are articles for all of them. See :Category:Motorway service areas (United Kingdom
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ROADOUTCOMES)

Comment: Passes  as a populated, legally recognised place
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)