Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanToronto

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. Sufficient consensus; no need for relist #4. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanToronto[edit]

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

I love this blog myself as I'm fascinated about what's happening in Toronto but from what I can tell from my websearch, it fails GNG. This odd addition that "Wikipedian Simon Pulsifer is a member of UrbanToronto," both here and in Simon's bio article, strikes me as an attempt to somehow confer notability -- when in fact anyone can join their discussions. If there's significant independent coverage out there in reliable sources that I've missed, please let me know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I do see that it rates a nice passing mention in The Globe and Mail where the architecture writer calls it "one of my go-to sites for all things development" in Toronto -- that's good. But we'd need much more than that, useful as the site is for that author as well as laymen like me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: I respectfully request that you withdraw this request and revisit later. The article was literally created yesterday, and I am still working on its development. Some items have been added that may be trivial, and they may have been added by anonymous users who may not be as familiar with Wikipedia policies. Just give it a chance to develop and establish notability, and then we can revisit whether it should be deleted or not later. I would greatly appreciate some extra time, I do not have a large amount of time IRL to dedicate to expansion this weekend. --Natural R_X 14:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These AFDs are typically open for a minimum of seven days and you'll have plenty of time to improve it after what I realize is a holiday weekend in Ontario. In the meantime, if others can find reliable sources I'll happily withdraw as I too like this site. And sources don't have to be on the article. If anyone can simply demonstrate that it meets GNG -- or WP:WEBCRIT -- that would be fine. So no, I'm sorry, but I'd rather not withdraw what I still believe to be a valid Afd for a non-notable subject. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Please give it some time. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~. While there's certainly notability potential here, it isn't actually demonstrated by this article as written or sourced — and if you need time to get it up to snuff, then the place to do that is in the draft or user sandbox spaces, not in mainspace. And I'm a reader of it, too, so it's not a question of personally lacking familiarity with the topic. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Keep per NaturalRX's improvements. Nice job. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe I have added enough content to establish the site's notability in the realm of urban development in Toronto, in accordance with WP:WEB. Furthermore, a Google search will make it apparent that Urban Toronto articles are featured on many other third-party sites; pages of significant developers such as Great Gulf and IBI Group are examples. --Natural R_X 20:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That helps cement the keep for me. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to cement consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment UrbanToronto has been mentioned in Captain Vancouver's blog and mentions me specifically: http://captainvancouver.com/superhero/ Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this looks to scrape by the notability requirements based on the sourcing, and after the cleanup I see no need to send to draft. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:08, 4 September 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.