Talk:Commercial Street, Leeds

message: Wiki is not a directory, appropriate mentions should be given to headquarters buildings, architecture - but branches of multiples are NOT individually notable. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, the links in the list are to articles about chains of retailers not the individual shops - therefore it is not a list about the shops in Commercial Street. The above statement has remained unchallenged for 5 years so I have removed said list. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 22:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of stores 

message: Keep, but for the moment as a redirect - for example as a redirect to the Leeds article. There is certainly potential for a very interesting article here, if the architecture and history of the buildings were followed up. I agree with the comment that the retailers are for the most part a subsidiary story, because most of them are transient, but no doubt there are or were some retailers which stayed for many years and have been part of the city's history in themselves. I would add that the very fact that the Commons category has so many images of the street surely tells us that the subject is of interest. No-one could produce a satisfactory article within seven days to prevent deletion - it could take months to find all the necessary citations. It would be sad though, to delete so as to make it difficult for anyone to respond with a good expansion. It is easy enough to rescue a redirect with a decent article, which has been worked up with due care in userspace. So, I repeat, please keep, but temporarily as a redirect. Storye book (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, but no, a redirect is not viable. This street is not mentioned in the Leeds page and a redirect is going to result in readers following the redirect and then searching the Leeds page, in vain, for information. This article has been in existence for nearly 13 years and no-one, in that time, has found a single indepth source or notable feature. Just Chilling (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Then why not spend a few seconds looking for sources rather than asking for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: * @ Just Chilling. I had only just noticed this article (via another page on my watchlist) and, given time, I could have expanded it easily. I was seriously considering doing that, but a full deletion would have turned an awful lot of work into a potential waste of time if I could not get it undeleted. You say there is no notable feature in the street, but if you look at Moorlands House (in the article's picture) i have already researched the architectural aspects of that building here: Robert Mawer#Moorlands House, 48 Albion Street, Leeds, 1852-1855 and uploaded a great number of photos of the carvings to Commons. There is already an article about Leeds Library - so WP already recognises two "notable features" as you put it. The Leeds Library article has a good number of "in depth" sources (whatever that means), and the Moorlands House section linked above has five references in respect of architecture and sculpture alone. I have no doubt I could find more material of historical and social interest in that street, which has been there in the middle of the city for hundreds of years. I only ask that you don't delete it (or put deletion in process) to prevent me or anyone else from doing that. Storye book (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: deletion request