Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 in Brampton


 * 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. Ironholds (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 in Brampton

 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * – ( View AfD View log )

There's no precedent that I'm aware of for funnelling these all the way down to "individual year in individual city" spinoffs (hell, we don't even fork them out by state or province, let alone anything narrower than that) — and even if for some wacky reason we did actually want to start such a thing, there's no earthly reason why Brampton, a midsized suburb of Toronto which isn't even the primary city in its own county, much less a principal anchor community for the Greater Toronto Area as a whole or an internationally prominent metropolis in its own right, would be an even remotely logical place to begin doing it. In a nutshell, this sort of thing is literally begging to get turned into a local community corkboard where every non-notable club and community group in town feels entitled to post the deets for their own fundraising bakesales and church picnics and general meetings — note, frex, that there's already a listing for "Peel Children's Water Festival Family Day" — and that's just not what Wikipedia is for. And furthermore, the Years in Brampton index is structured to presume that this project will eventually go all the way back to the 1600s — two centuries before the city even existed in the first place. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete but... Well, we have 2011 in Israeli Film, and 2011 in sumo. Is it so outrageous? It's true it doesn't really make sense at this time, i.e. to provide a yearbook for this suburb when they don't exist for other places. And I agree that the information provided does not all sit well in an encyclopaedia, especially regarding events that have not happened yet. But an annual snapshot of a population centre is a neat way of arranging information and for my part I would find it interesting and useful if a link to individual years existed for every population centre. But I think this would need to be a managed project to start with - and it would be a major undertaking.Asnac (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep.
 * Okay, so it hasn't been done before? So what? Just because no one's taken the time to do such a project. It's not a quick process, digging through hundreds of trivial references to the city in regional media outlets, and thousands of articles in local outlets, to find the stories that matter. And thus, no one's tried, because it's a lot of time to devote. So?
 * "suburb": Yes, we are a suburb. But that's irrelevant, because 8 of the top 30 cities in Canada by population (List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population) are suburbs of Toronto. (And yes, I'm counting Hamilton, because I went to college with people from Hamilton, I work with people from Hamilton, and the GO commuter transit goes to Hamilton.) I'd love to know what a large suburb would be, if Brampton's a "midsize suburb".
 * "isn't even the primary city in its own county": Primary by population? Sure, we've got Canada's 6th largest city in our region, so no, 11th largest city in the country isn't the biggest. But we are the "county seat", all regional (county) government happens here. Place us in the US? We'd be the 34th largest city.
 * At least half of the citations are for regional papers or media outlets (The Toronto Star, Canada's largest circulation newspaper, or CTV Toronto), out-of-province papers (The Vancouver Sun), or national outlets (The Globe and Mail).
 * "much less a principal anchor community for the Greater Toronto Area as a whole": What would you consider a principal anchor community in the GTA? Other than Toronto itself, no one community stands above them all.
 * As for whether this is a logical place, it's not my fault that I'm from Brampton, and I find it interesting. Perhaps in another life I'll be from Tokyo or Paris, and I'll do this project there.
 * "literally begging to get turned into a local community corkboard": No, no it isn't. And for one thing, "fundraising bakesales and church picnics and general meetings" don't even always get mentioned in our local newspaper, so they could even be cited. And considering 50% of the citations are from out-of-town publications...
 * As per the Water Festival, I've deleted it, but it has 50,000 attendance every year, I would assume more people than attend the European Juggling Convention.
 * With regards to Years in Brampton, that's call "Oops, guess my internet connect flicker without me noticing." I copy-pasted Years in Canada, did a find-replace, and didn't edit further. (While Brampton was founded in 1834 as a village, microfilm of the local newspapers only go back to Confederation, so not much reason to go further back.)
 * Ask yourself: if this was 2011 in Atlanta, 2011 in Miami, 2011 in Pittsburgh or 2011 in Halifax, would we even be having this AfD? --  Zanimum (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I sure hope we would.  PK T (alk)  01:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, the contents of the list are either redundant (election results), or have little-to-no historical significance. (eg, "March 30 - NDP leader Jack Layton makes a campaign stop in Brampton" Whoo-hoo!) I agree with Bearcat's description of why this ought not to be in Wikipedia. There aren't articles for 2011 in Atlanta, or 2011 in Ontario.  2011 in Canada has been started, and its contents are much more notable than what's listed for Brampton.   PK  T (alk)  01:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have added the newly-created 1981 in Brampton, if you don't mind. ...  disco spinster   talk  01:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. There's a reason that 2011 in Atlanta, etc., haven't been started, and it's nothing to do with effort.  Any important events will be mentioned in the city's article, and will likely be chronological.  There's no need to list things like store closings and campaign visits.  (P.S.: Hamilton is in no way a suburb of Toronto.)  ...  disco spinster   talk  01:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, campaigning in Brampton not consider relevant? Brampton's ridings were considered crucial swing ridings by the Conservatives, in helping them get a majority government, the first Canada's had since 2003. The amount of campaigning in Brampton by party leaders was unprecedented. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5iMObwGS9yl278wKopt93v7n66y9g?docId=6709441
 * No, campaign stops by the various leaders are not relevant notable. They visit all over the place during an election - that's why it's called a "campaign".   PK  T (alk)  12:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the store closings, if you'd look at the referenced article, Shop-Rite Catalogue Stores was a chain of stores that grew from 4 stores to 64 in just five years. Whilst not massive, it was a significant enough blow for the economy.
 * As for Hamilton's suburb status, Wikipedia defines suburbs within Canada as "separate residential communities within commuting distance of a city". If the Ontario government has a commuter line to Toronto, from Hamilton... I'm not saying it's dependent on Toronto, but neither is Brampton. --  Zanimum (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not saying that it's not relevant, just that it does not need to be in a separate article.  The information would fit fine in the Brampton article.  And as for the definition of "suburb" -- that could very well mean that Toronto is a suburb of Hamilton. :-) ...  disco spinster   talk  02:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, by Wikipedia's definition, Toronto could qualify as a suburb. To the other point, see below. --  Zanimum (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What defines a suburb is not merely commuting distance alone -- it's a complex interplay of factors, including what percentage of the city's population commutes to the larger city to work instead of working locally (Brampton has a much higher percentage of commuters-to-Toronto than Hamilton does), whether the smaller city has its own separate media or is part of the larger city's media market (Hamilton has its own daily newspaper, its own TV station and several of its own radio stations, while Brampton has none of the above; even the few radio stations that are officially licensed to Brampton brand themselves and function as Toronto stations), the degree of economic interlinkage, and on and so forth. But that's really a side argument anyway; the crux of the issue has nothing to do with whether Brampton is a suburb or a metropolitan core city, because there's no city on earth, regardless of its status as a suburb or a major metropolis, that has its own distinct set of "2011 in City" articles on Wikipedia either. Mississauga doesn't. Hamilton doesn't. Toronto doesn't. London doesn't. New York City doesn't. Tokyo doesn't. Why on earth should Brampton be seen as having a special entitlement to this sort of thing? —Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I first created 2011 in Brampton, I was poking around category:Sport in Brampton, and wondered what the heck the Bramalea Satellites were. They've had a page since 2006, but it never exceeded a sentence, and it was an orphan, not even linked to from Sports in Brampton, Ontario. The team receives one brief mention in one of the local history books, but only one (there's been ~4 that should have mentioned it before or since). The one that mentioned it only mentioned some Brampton boys were playing on the team, nothing else.

So I decide to research the team, turns out they were a taxi squad for the Argos, with a dozen former Argos on the team at one point, won the Canadian championships for their level of play a few times, switched to another league for two years, where they won the championship both years, before switching to a third league, where they crashed and burned. The story of this team (which I've yet to flesh out as much as I'd like to) was completely wiped off the face of history.

How is this relevant? In 1967, 1968, 1969, 1973, 1974, they probably would have been among the biggest news-makers in town. In the grand scheme of things, they weren't the pride of our town (the Brampton Excelsiors), and they aren't the new hot team whose players go to the NHL (the Brampton Battalion). Simply, while they were cool then, they were epic enough when history writers distilled things down to the essentials. Will a corrupt cop, a Mayor who misuses City staff, or local ridings being among the most contentious in Canada make a local history book in 2020? But they were all covered in Canada's highest circulation newspaper, the latter two endlessly. If we only look at the big picture, we loose lots of big, notable stories that are important, but just don't fit into a greater narrative. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, for the most part........and the article History of Brampton is there for that purpose. But the creation of the series of "20xx in Brampton" articles, capturing all the minutia that occurred in the city, is not justified.   PK  T (alk)  21:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that there have only been two things worth note in May. I am picky. I've skipped a murder-suicide, the Citizen of the Year Award and Business Person of the Year Award, and school board hiring discrimination lawsuit, etc. --  Zanimum (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete All There is 2011 in Canada. No need for this article covering a single community.  Kyle  1278  04:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete All - There's a history section in the Brampton article for truly significant events. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete All God help us if this kind of article becomes the norm. It's not even a good way to sort the historic information, which should all be in one place, namely, the history section of the main article. (Suppose you are trying to find out when a particular event happened; you would have to go through each individual article. Was it in 2000? No. Was it in 2001? No. Was it in 2002? No.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.