Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hays Ridge, Edmonton

Add links
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.

The result was Keep, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hays Ridge, Edmonton[edit]

Hays Ridge, Edmonton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a new subdivision, without any significant development until late last year. The neighborhood doesn't have any significant history which would warrant a Wikipedia article. I couldn't find any sources to prove that it is currently populated. While the article has sources, they are all from the City of Edmonton, and I wouldn't call those sources as "secondary, reliable sources" under WP:GNG. Per WP:GEOLAND articles must also meet WP:GNG for a separate article.SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 22:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 21:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 21:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to consider whether redirecting/merging would be a possible alternative to deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 06:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wouldn't be opposed to merging the article with List of neighbourhoods in Edmonton. Please keep in mind that I was unable to find any proof that the neighborhood is currently populated, and had the same experience that Shawn in Montreal had, with no news coverage found. SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 17:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elaboration (further to my keep reply above): this article is about a officially designated and named neighbourhood with defined boundaries comprising multiple existing and future subdivisions. Although in its infancy of development, it was already populated with 160 residents in 2016 and will have an estimated population of 5,253 residents at full build-out. Notwithstanding GEOLAND, which is ambiguous and not explicit on official neighbourhoods, this should be kept based on longstanding consensus that all residential neighbourhoods in Calgary and Edmonton are notable enough for articles. This article was created in good faith based on the precedent that all others had articles. Although a newer neighbourhood, it is no less important than an older established neighbourhood that only has the benefit of more time passed to accrue a more fulsome history and coverage. It will accumulate its history and coverage over time. Surely some non-City of Edmonton sources can be found. Here is one. If this is deleted on these grounds, surely dozens and dozens of Edmonton's other nearly 300 residential neighbourhoods are eligible to suffer the same fate as well. I'd much rather see a single deletion discussion of a large volume of these similar articles rather than picking them off one-by-one, such as is currently the case with this and recently three neighbourhoods in Calgary, despite years of Edmonton and Calgary residential neighbourhood article stability. Should the ultimate consensus be something other than keep, then it should be redirected to either Heritage Valley, Edmonton or List of neighbourhoods in Edmonton. Hwy43 (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is out of date. It is no longer "future", it is an established neighbourhood. 117Avenue (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about 117Avenue's vote. As far as I know, there are no news articles about the neighbourhood being established, and nothing on the neighbourhood's website about it either. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 20:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be better to now characterize the neighbourhood as developing. Neighbourhoods in Edmonton typically are not deemed established until they are essentially built-out. Hwy43 (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per prior consensus at similar articles as explained above. Edmonton neighborhoods are notable, and if nominator thinks they're not, he should establish consensus rather than picking them off one by one. Smartyllama (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hays_Ridge,_Edmonton&oldid=1089529983"