Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harbour District

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. v/r - T P 17:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harbour District[edit]

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

A completely unofficial name for an area of the city. The entire article is based on a poll ran by a free newspaper, and has nothing to do with the official naming of a neighbourhood. The name has no connection with any official naming by the city, it's simply a casual vote run by a single paper on what some people would like the area to be called. Canterbury Tail talk 02:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't made an argument as to why the article should be deleted though. There has been coverage in newspapers, not just gridto. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A neighbourhood based on a poll two weeks ago in a free newspaper. While neighbourhoods, and their respective boundaries and names, are always evolving, this has not yet been shown to actually be commonly understood as a separate neighbourhood or as a commonly-used name. Before an article is created, a neighbourhood should be shown through a variety of reliable sources to be widely recognized as a separate and distinct area. I didn't see any of the other sources referring to this as the Harbour District, unless I missed something. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if we can find reliable sources 'reliably'. Take a look at all the neighbourhoods of Toronto articles. Many of them rely on unofficial designations, and are mentioned in the map of neighbourhoods of the Toronto Star. That map was made by user contributions to the Toronto Star. But there isn't any other reliable source. Do we go and delete all of those? The official designations of the City of Toronto are specifically only for government reasons and often conflict with local usage. Our practice to this time has not been to challenge those. Don't see why we have to challenge this one, except to say that 'South Core' could be the appropriate name instead. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you point to this Toronto Star map that includes the neighbourhood, as I can't find any reference to it on the Toronto Star site, unless I'm misunderstanding the comment and you mean it's used as a source for other neighbourhood names. Canterbury Tail talk 03:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link is at the bottom of the List of neighbourhoods in Toronto. The map is here. Actually, I think I was going on several years-old memories. A quick check showed there are sources found for neighbourhoods I had concerns about. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides pointing out WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, at least many of those neighbourhood articles rely on more than a two-week old internet poll.Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe the best solution is to take the existing content and add it to the Harbourfront article. Make this and 'South Core' redirect to the section in the Harbourfront article. If more sources are found, we can fork it later. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been shown as a different neighborhood and is developing as such. "South Core" is based upon a real estate moniker. This article is supported by the Toronto WikiProject, and other articles have been written to designate neighborhoods based upon similar information. Wikiworld2 (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this "supported" by the Toronto Wikiproject, other than the fact someone slapped a tag on the talk page? As for other neighbourhoods, please read WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST -- junk articles don't justify more junk articles. And I am unsure of what sources you are basing your other conclusions. We ca't just go creating articles for every unsubstantiated theory about new neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods are unofficial, but are recognized because they are commonly recongized as such and the monicker has stood the test of time. This one satisfies neither of those principles. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems a little ludicrous given that "CityPlace" has been given a shot.i'm sure at first that entry was just as concerning to some people, albeit not of the seemingly thousands who voted for the name in the first place, versus one or two who complain here. the area is clearly referenced in the articles as included - CBC, The Star & The Grid. this s a newly developing part of the city and I wonder if the Wikipedians complaining have even been to this part of the city. definitely a keeper, there are real buildings here being built by real developers. the article on the cbc reference clearly states that this is part of efforts to create a new neighborhood and satisfies for me an entry into Wikipedia. Do the others here complaining even live in the city abecause i can confirm the reality of this new area with my own eyes. Grapejuicedrink (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - New user with no edits other than this deletion discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 03:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - from the article in The Grid; "Nearly a thousand of you [voted], and with one-fifth of the votes, crowned a clear winner: The Harbour District." This area name was voted on by about 200 people in poll in a free newspaper. The name has no merit - certainly there's no indication that the city endorses it. Additionally, the area appears to overlap with Harbourfront. PK T(alk) 00:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Neither the CBC article nor The Star article make any mention of this name for the area and are nothing to do with naming a new neighbourhood. Incidentally also in the area being touted in this article as a new neighbourhood, most of the buildings in that area are 10 years old or more, not new builds. Also what is being claimed in this article as this new named neighbourhood may want to check with the rest of the Harbourfront neighbourhood that is clearly labelled all over the area as Harbourfront. Walking by the Harbourfront signs just today there was no indication they are being changed to say Harbour District. Additionally even if it was a new official neighbourhood being created, it doesn't encompass the harbour, it just has what 2 quays into the harbour with the vast majority of the harbour being outside this "Harbour District." 200 people voting in a free newspaper poll and no other references to it as the name of a neighbourhood, officially or not, does not a name and new neighbourhood make. Do any references actually exist of this name outside this newspaper poll? I can't locate any (doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I can't locate them.) All articles must be verifiable, this isn't. Canterbury Tail talk 03:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the dispute that arises is here is with the name Harbour District - unfortunately, the argument is being misdirected. This is UNDOUBTEDLY a legit new area in Toronto. it might be easier to merge the original post with Harbourfront and fork it as was suggested earlier. I don't agree with this approach. A poll was held, and that certainly outnumbers the three or four Wikipedians here arguing for delete. A poll was held, and the new name was decided. I will agree that the content should be forked at a later date if that's what the general conscience decides. South Core now redirects here. Should the redirect be set up to redirect from this page AND South Core back to Harbourfront (despite that being a verifiable different part of the city)? Wikiworld2 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's hogwash, Wikiworld2, because of the numbers and facts I cited. Less than 0.04% of the city's population (2.6 million people) participated in the poll, and about 0.01% of the city's population voted for the fabricated name. The city doesn't endorse the name, either. The poll was held by a marginal, free newspaper. It counts for nothing. PK T(alk) 15:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiworld2, I think you have completely misconstrued people's comments. It isn't just about the name. And it isn't "undoubtedly a legit new area" - a few media mentions does not a recognized neighbourhood make. It's an area that is effectively a couple of blocks wide, part of Harbourfront, with the South Core office buildings arguably being an extension of the Financial District. And your comments about a silly internet poll taking precedence over consensus here are directly contrary to Wikipedia policy and guidelines.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2012 (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.