Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridley Road Market

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

[edit] Ridley Road Market

The result was Speedy deleted as copyright violation. Text drawn from these URLs: http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/sightseeing-national/ridley-road-food-market/1025867/, http://www.talkingcities.co.uk/london_pages/shopping_markets.htm and http://www.londonphotos.org/archives/ridley_road_market_dalston_east_london.html. Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridley Road Market (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article lacks context, lacks reliable sources, and is written in a tone that's pure advertising. In addition to this, it is unclear that this is a notable place. Prod removed without improvements. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

weak keep Although the personal journal/photo album style is distracting, it doesn't look like advertising, although it doesn't look like an encyclopedia article either. It seems verifiable enough that it could be stubbed. -Steve Sanbeg 16:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. While I'm sure this is a nice place, the article's layout says "picture gallery" - which Wikipedia is not for. This is more suitable for a webhost, which we aren't. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've deleted an image. This is not advertising, its a verifiable, real world bustling market. Please don't delete it, am happy to hear words of advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drfinn (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

    • ...is it notable? Can that notability be corroborated with some reliable information? Can that information be verified? If yes to all of those, I will change my mind, and recommend a cleanup. Another consideration: we aren't National Geographic. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
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.