Select Page

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopping parade

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 no consensus‎. It is clear that "keep" presently has the numbers. However, I'm closing this as no consensus, with no prejudice against relisting pending further work on the article or discussion on its talk page, since it is clear that the editorial discussion about the nature of "shopping parades" is not concluded, and may impact where we choose to place the material that has been brought up in this AfD. For now, please try to work this out editorially. asilvering (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping parade

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Shopping parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDICT. This is just a fancy term for a line of shops; there is nothing to say on the subject. TheLongTone (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree that there is nothing much to say on the subject. And, in any case, it is term that would be readily understood by the majority of readers. Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to vote on this one then, since I may not be understanding the full picture. I personally still do not understand how/why this topic warrants its own page. I just don't see why the colloquial term for a bunch of shops in a row warrants its own page, even if it is mentioned in a lot of sources. jolielover♥talk 03:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTADICTIONARY jolielover♥talk 17:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete -- violates WP:NOTDICT (see below). Mrfoogles (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep, see below. Delete, WP:NOTDICT. Additionally, Redirect + Merge with Strip mall. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but do not redirect to Strip mall; this is just a name used in England for a street with shops along it, which is not a strip mall. I2Overcome talk 18:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, shops came along later and aren't fundamental to parades, according to the book that I finally found. But yes, going by what the book says, U.K. parades and arcades and promenades and esplanades are definitely not strip malls. Uncle G (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agree this should not be redirected to Strip mall Mrfoogles (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's false anyway. That's not at all how "parade" comes to be used like this. ISBN 9781119881032 pp. 144–145. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what you're saying is that you have another independent reliable source about parade's of shops. That looks like another reason to keep Neonchameleon (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is about parades not having shops in the first place, so it is a reason that what you are inventing is unverifiable against an expert-written source. Uncle G (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you're claiming that a claim sourced to a reliable source was something I invented? Not only are you using reliable sources that demonstrate notability in some bizarre argument to delete, but wp:AGF springs to mind. Neonchameleon (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm using a source from an expert in English language socio-linguistic history who explains that parades are actually railway and seafront things, and shopping is incidental. This does not in any way demonstrate notability of assertions that the source flatly contradicts. Are you going to invent shopping arcade too? The expert explains that those are arcades with shops, and that's how we actually have them in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry. Are you literally accusing me of inventing the terms "shopping parade" and "parade of shops"? When between the two terms there are already approaching a couple of hundred uses on Wikipedia with only a tiny handful of them being near railways or seafronts? We have another example here of someone who doesn't understand the term, thus further refuting the idea it will be understood by an overwhelming majority of readers. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why the nominator thinks there's nothing to say on the subject is beyond me and looks like a clear failure of wp:before. Multiple reliable sources on the subject are part of the stub, thus passing wp:N - and at least one of the sources goes into the history, making it subject to the wp:WORDISSUBJECT exception for the notadictionary policy. The idea that "the term would be understood by the majority of readers" would have a whole lot of pages eliminated (like strip mall) and is nothing more than wp:IDONTLIKEIT; the deletion standards are far higher than "the majority" while the fact that one of the contributors thinks it should be merged with strip mall demonstrates conclusively that even among Wikipedians participating in this AfD not everyone understands what a parade of shops is. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Did any of the chorus of deletes do a WP:BEFORE on this topic? It's patently false that "there is nothing to say".
  • Astaire (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, otherwise logically I couldn't have found and pointed to an source from an expert at the University of Cambridge explaining that Historic England has got it wrong. The London Assembly report is a good example, in fact. It starts talking about "neighbourhood parades". As the expert explains, parades were railway (and also seafront) things in the U.K. that evolved into long social-activity streets, and shopping is incidental to the fact that people parade up and down them doing social stuff in general. Xe doesn't support shopping parades as distinct any more than xe supports all of the U.K.'s Station Parades as distinct singular concepts. Amusingly, your A&C source even told you that parades are social centres, had you but read its abstract, which is a bit ironic given what you are calling out other people for. You're clearly doing superficial research by mere title phrase matching. After all, if you had even got as far as reading the executive summary of the London Assembly report you would have seen it in reality cover corner shops (not unexpected given the title), shopping centres, supermarkets, and small businesses. Further on it goes into town and country planning in the United Kingdom under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. This is the usual oft-seen at AFD poor show of throwing title phrase matches into a discussion, accusing everyone else of not doing the work, without actually doing the work of reading the things that are matched. Uncle G (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, otherwise logically I couldn't have found and pointed to an source from an expert at the University of Cambridge explaining that Historic England has got it wrong. You have shown no such thing, beyond vague gesturing at a source that in reality contradicts you. The Social Life of Words explicitly acknowledges that a "shopping parade" is a real phenomenon with a distinct definition.
      • "However, the young people on monkey parades also paraded along SHOPPING PARADES in the sense of ‘short urban or suburban stretches of shops’. The Oxford English Dictionary conflates both these senses under parade, n. 1 4.: ‘a public square or promenade; (also) a row of shops in a town, or the street on which they are situated’."
      • "The reason parade developed the meaning ‘short suburban stretch of shops selling basic necessities’ was due to the building boom of the second half of the nineteenth century caused by the advent of rail travel."
      The London Assembly report is a good example, in fact. It starts talking about "neighbourhood parades". The report uses the term "shopping parade" more often than it does "neighbourhood parade", and in context "neighbourhood parades" is clearly a synonym for shopping parades, given that the report is entirely about retail shops.
      shopping is incidental to the fact that people parade up and down them doing social stuff in general. Xe doesn't support shopping parades as distinct Again, see the two quotes above. This is a stunning misrepresentation of the source.
      Amusingly, your A&C source even told you that parades are social centres Please do not selectively quote from the source when we can all read it. The article makes it clear that the primary function of shopping parades is shopping, not socializing.
        • "Thousands of shopping parades were built on suburban high roads and in estates, providing the residents of these new communities not just with a local place to shop for their daily (or more major needs) but also offering a center for local activities and interactions, both informal and formal."
        • "Interwar suburban shopping parades remain today in their thousands, providing a highly visible material record of a time and place where changes in retailing, in consumption and in investment practices gave birth to new retail environments and transformed the street scene. In an era of mass consumerism that facilitated shopping for pleasure as well as daily needs, these smart and welcoming new buildings were a characteristic element of many people’s everyday environment."
      Astaire (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Astaire and Neonchameleon. Also, I was able to find a bit more coverage of shopping parades in Innovation: The History of England Volume VI by Peter Ackroyd. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 08:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there are entire books about the history, architecture and sociology of shopping parades I don't think we can brush them off with a quick WP:NOTDICTIONARY; indeed, on that basis, we would have tens of thousands of articles defining everyday things which fell into that category. Yes, the article is a stub; yes, it can and should be improved, but AfD is not for that. At the very least, I think the material could be merged into Shopping center. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Convinced by the sources offered by "keep" !voters above that this topic meets WP:GNG on both sourcing and the test of a standalone page. It appears to be sufficiently distinct as a concept from strip mall, neighborhood shopping center, shopping mall and shopping arcade not to warrant merging into one of those pages. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: This complete shift in opinion is unusual. @TheLongTone, Mike Marchmont, Jolielover, Mrfoogles, and CF-501 Falcon: Could the "delete" proponents please comment on the sources proposed by the later "keep" proponents? Sandstein 21:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not checking in here. Will change, there are multiple compelling arguments. Thank you! CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The list of sources is longer than the text of the article. This is a padded DICDEF. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the sources listed in the AFD, though, it could be expanded a lot (look at the Historic England source specifically, and the paper about interwar shopping parades) -- article notability is not based on the current content of articles at all (yes, it's currently a DICDEF) but what they could be, which based on the sources now available is a different thing altogether. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The paper seems like a good source at first, but then it says this: "Within existing policy and research on neighbourhood parades there is a common ambiguity of terms and definitions. The available research makes reference, interchangeably, to ‘neighbourhood retailing’, ‘local shops’, ‘small shops’, ‘local centres’, ‘convenience retailing’, ‘parades of shops’, ’secondary retailing’, and other typologies"
So I don't know if this supports this having its own article.
https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assembly-publications/cornered-shops-londons-small-shops-and additionally just uses the term while discussing local retailing. I think that these sources could be used for an article for local shopping, definitely, though.
Looking at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20507828.2017.1399760, though, presents a stronger argument for shopping parades as their own phenomenon. And https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/iha-shopping-parades/heag116-shopping-parades-iha is additionally a strong source describing shopping parades specifically.
Overall, I'm voting keep given that there are two sources describing these things in detail now. The opposing argument is centered around the sources given being wrong, which I don't see, or stating that they are a social phenomenon, which wouldn't disqualify them from being an thing worth talking about. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources presented above make it clear that this is an encyclopaedic topic we should have coverage of. Whether that subject is shopping parades in their narrowest sense or something slightly broader is something that can be discussed but none of the options require or even justify deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator I see lots of assertions that this is a noteworthy topic which might impress me if anybody was making any' effort to improve the article beyond a dictionary definition. I do not see how 'parade' is anything more than a pretentious name fo 'row of shops'. I really dislike editors who assert that something is a noteworthy topic and are completely unable or unwilling to actually do some work on the subject.TheLongTone (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there are currently examples of sources on retail, on urban planning, on sociology, and on history, and probably more. If you can't see the potential of the subject of the article that is a you problem. If you are claiming that because it is not there yet (and we aren't made of time) the article should be deleted despite clearly sailing past wp:N, with wp:SIGCOV in multiple wp:RS then I would point out that it is an active misuse of AfD to use it to get articles improved. And your only policy based reason for the AfD demonstrates a failure of the very most basic part wp:BEFORE to check the sources that were already there and that provided wp:SIGCOV (and that would clearly not be in a dictionary). Neonchameleon (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NEXIST, notability demonstrated by sourcing in the discussion above; generally speaking the current state of the article (or the immediate willingness or lack thereof of editors to make improvements) should have little bearing on a notability discussion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2025 (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.