Talk:Pill Hill, Chicago

Merger Proposal
I propose that Pill Hill, Chicago be merged into Calumet Heights, Chicago. I think that the content in the Pill Hill, Chicago article can easily be explained in the context of the Calumet Heights, Chicago as Pill Hill is a smaller neighborhood within the Calumet Heights community area. While there are neighborhoods within community areas that have their own articles, I believe the size of the Pill Hill neighborhood geographically and population wise warrants it as a section of Calumet Heights, Chicago. This is not dissimilar to the situation of Galewood, Chicago and Austin, Chicago or The Island, Chicago and Austin, Chicago. Mpen320 (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose (First off note that the proper banners were not put on either page) There is some merit to this nomination. However, it seems to me that since the Calumet Heights article is scrounging for content, it has decided to attempt to merge the Pill Hill content. The Cal Heights article should be expanded and may include a summary of Pill Hill, but the proper article needs more research. Plopping in election results is not a way to build an article on a neighborhood.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * First, I apologize for any inconvenience I caused in not executing the merge proposal correctly. I am in agreement Calumet Heights needs expansion independent of adding the content from the Pill Hill article. I would like to clarify I did not create the Calumet Heights article so I don't know where the "scrounging" comment comes from. The politics section was the easiest for me to plug in at the time I was thinking about it. I did not realize I needed to build the entire article BEFORE proposing the merger.--Mpen320 (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article is well sourced and notable on its own way (coming from a Chicago native). And per TonytheTiger, you can't merge this well put out article into another article which is in need of an expansion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well sourced? While there are a good number of citations, the breakdown of the 10 citations is not well sourced. I would argue only Wikipedia-caliber sources are its Encyclopedia of Chicago entry and the NY Times review of Pill Hill. The TimeOut Chicago and Mark Konkol article no longer go where the citation says they should, but if someone is able to find archived versions of them (I no longer have searching abilities beyond Google) I would consider those encyclopedic. The rest are from real estate websites. I would not consider advertisements or City-Data (a social networking site) to be encyclopedic.


 * Oppose If anyone were to come out, and visit Pill Hill. They would see it is an island all its own when stacked next to the rest of the Calumet Heights area. It is an area with a lot of history. Many famous black people lived there, including entertainers, professional athletes, musicians and politicians, not just Doctors. It really should be taken into consideration for historic district status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:c9e0:4770:e1d6:d1c7:49e3:5091 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Borders
Someone keeps trying to change the borders based on WP:OR (their own personal opinion/knowledge). WP content is based on WP:TRUTH.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The person that thinks they are the guardian of this knowledge should show proof of how they determined the boundaries for Pill Hill. They obviously have no real knowledge of the area. WP:OR (their own personal opinion/knowledge). WP content is based on WP:TRUTH.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:c9e0:4770:45a4:4f70:174d:f68f (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There was a source at some point, but I can't find it. However, no one has come up with another source.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)