Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown Norwich


 * 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 no consensus. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 03:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Downtown Norwich
Previous RfD for this title: Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 26
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm moving this here from MfD, where it was originally nominated by Cnilep. I speedily closed the MfD because the article in question is a disambiguation page in the article namespace; see WP:Miscellany for deletion/Downtown Norwich for more on why I did so. The original nominator's rationale is as follows:

"Downtown Norwich is a DAB page. There are currently no internal links to that name, and no clear reason to expect that pages would link to that name rather than Norwich. The page Norwich (disambiguation) therefore seems sufficient to handle any future links.

In addition, DAB pages are generally created only when there are three or more topics that might be referred to with the same term. This page currently contains only two links. I redirected the page to Norwich (disambiguation), but this edit was reverted by the editor who created the page.

See also WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 26, a decision to delete the page Downtown Norwich, which at that time was a redirect to Norwich. Cnilep (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)"


 * Comment - Actually, the page had been created as a redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District, then was edited by another user to become a redirect to Norwich (which was an inappropriate destination). It was nominated for deletion while it was in that state, but it got switched back and forth a couple more times during the RfD discussion period. When deleted, it was a redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am neutral. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I also am neutral. I don't think this page does any harm, but I also think it serves no useful purpose. Far too much time and energy has been expended battling over inconsequential redirects and disambiguation pages like this one, when it doesn't matter one way or the other. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District, which appears to be the primary meaning of the phrase and is the most appropriate redirect target. There was no good reason to delete the original redirect anyway. Are we saying that the phrase "downtown Norwich" should be forever a red link? If so, what is the policy basis for requiring a permanent red link? --Polaron | Talk 05:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I personally don't see a consensus to delete at the RfD... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Orlady did see the consensus to delete and has stated she believes the page does not have value, appropriately IMO pointing that out to Polaron at User talk:Polaron, as follows:

BEGIN QUOTE ''Hi. I see that after the redirect was deleted, you re-created Downtown Norwich as a disambiguation page. I don't believe that the page has value. The chance that someone would seek an article about "Downtown Norwich" without finding their way to Norwich (disambiguation) or Downtown Norwich Historic District is vanishingly small. This article gets in the way of prospective users by placing an extra step between them and the content they seek. To avoid yet another contentious (but fundamentally pointless) discussion, would you please consider flagging it with ? --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)'' Considering that the "Downtown Norwich" redirect was just recently deleted following a CfD discussion, recreating the redirect would convey a very negative message regarding your opinions of Wikipedia policies and conventions. Although the fact that a pair of words exist as a potential search term does not justify creating a wikilink for that pair of words, the redirect was (in my opinion) harmless. Unfortunately, however, the disambiguation page could be harmful -- it creates problems for other users. People who click on a 'downtown Norwich" link in the articles that have such links are now taken to a disambiguation page, when we all know perfectly well where they should be pointed. Those links should be piped so as to take the user to Downtown Norwich Historic District. If they were piped, then there would be no need for either a redirect or a disambiguation page. Goes off to pipe those links... --Orlady (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC) ''END QUOTE
 * "Downtown Norwich" is primarily used for the Connecticut neighborhood of that name as evidenced by Google Books and News hits. I would consider recreating the redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District as the primary topic for that term. --Polaron | Talk 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ''Sorry for not responding earlier -- I was thinking about what to say.
 * I agree with Orlady's previously stated sentiments quoted here: the disambiguation page is mildly harmful and should be deleted. doncram (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - My views have been misrepresented. I think the best use of this title is as a redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District, but Doncram has vehemently opposed the existence of that redirect, and managed to get it deleted. At this point, I have seen so much time and effort squandered arguing over so little that I don't care what happens to the page. --Orlady (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The previous redirect to NRHP-listed "Downtown Norwich Historic District" and the current disambiguation page are in effect argumentative assertions of one editor (Polaron) that "Downtown Norwich" is a wikipedia-notable place. I see no evidence that "Downtown Norwich" is a significant place on its own, while there is no question that NRHP-listed "Downtown Norwich Historic District" is wikipedia-notable.


 * I believe that under disambiguation page guidelines and DAB-editing practices it is justified to delete both entries in the current dab page, as neither points to an article or section actually describing a "Downtown Norwich" neighborhood.


 * Note, the current DAB page makes the unsupported assertion that "the central business district of Norwich, Connecticut, [is] designated as Downtown Norwich Historic District". That is not supported by the linked article on Downtown Norwich Historic District, because I and others would delete an unsupported assertion like that if made there.  The historic district is no doubt in the "downtown" area of Norwich, but there is no evidence that its legal bounds coincide with whatever local usage might be for a neighborhood of that name.  The DAB page is serving as a place for Polaron to make the unsupported assertion.  If Polaron wishes to establish that "Downtown Norwich" of Norwich, Connecticut is wikipedia-notable, he should do so by following the procedure he agreed to in a long discussion (namely, get the stupid NRHP document and/or other sources which discuss relationship of NRHP-place to hamlet/village/neighborhood, and create a DYK-length accurately sourced article on the topic).   doncram (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District. This seems to be the topic that`people are most likely to be expecting to see if they type in "Downtown Norwich". Redirects don't have to be pedantically "correct" - it doesn't matter that "Downtown Norwich" might itself refer to something with different boundaries than the historic district. (In fact this seems to have been the actual conclusion of the previous AfD discussion.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are just guessing that any people at all are looking for "Downtown Norwich" (I think it is likely no one is; even the Norwich, CT, area newspapers only occasionally refer to "downtown Norwich" and I believe never to a "Downtown Norwich" neighborhood per se).  And, you are just guessing that if there is a neighborhood Downtown Norwich, that the historic district would be what readers would be seeking.  As with many other historic districts around the country, this could be one where it is a small historic district IN the downtown area of the city, not covering very much at all of the neighborhood.  It could be that readers, if any, would be better served by going to the Norwich, CT, article.  You are just guessing that Polaron's guess/assertion is correct.  This is an encyclopedia where there should be reliable sources supporting any assertions made.  Polaron, and presumably you, are unwilling to obtain the free NRHP document that would provide clarity on the actual relationship of any "Downtown Norwich" neighborhood, if one exists, to the "Downtown Norwich Historic District", perhaps then justifying a redirect.  In the absence of reliable sources, the appropriate thing is to delete the DAB now and not replace it by a redirect.  Polaron has created hundreds of similar redirects which are in effect argumentative assertions not backed up by any reliable source.  If Polaron wanted to create wikipedia-relevant knowledge to be reflected in these articles, the way is open for him to do so (get the stupid NRHP document.  Also, Kotniski, you are not bound by any previous agreement, but Polaron has agreed in a long discussion at Talk:Poquetanuck and elsewhere, to abide by decision not to create a competing article on "Downtown Norwich".  Creating a redirect or a dab page to make the assertion that Downtown Norwich exists as a neighborhood is in effect just a subversion of the agreement, IMO.  An invited mediator in the long discussions, User:Acroterion, has elsewhere stated, as Polaron knows, that he disapproves of the extra redirects like the one that was here.  Polaron should abide by that and not create redirects like was involved here (or dabs to substitute for them). doncram (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  —JHunterJ (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Downtown Norwich Historic District and Downtown Norwich (New York) are ambiguous, so useful dab. If Downtown Norwich (New York) redirect is deleted, this title could become a redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District, contrary to the earlier RfD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. JHJ has stated perfectly the reasons why it should be kept, and the conditions under which it should become a redirect. --NSH001 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You both seem to be overestimating the importance of this other redirect. It probably should be deleted, true, but we aren't a bureaucracy - we shouldn't let the existence of one odd thing elsewhere prevent us from doing the right thing here. (In any case I think DNHD is the primary topic, since this is actually an entity likely to be named as such, while the other thing is just the downtown of some city, which isn't the sort of thing people are likely to be looking for an article on other than under the article for the city.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've been to downtown Norwich, New York, and I can testify that it is unlikely that anyone would expect to find an encyclopedia article about it. Norwich is a very small city. --Orlady (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not over-estimating its importance, or treating this as a bureaucratic process. Another editor has, in good faith, created a redirect to an article. This, in and of itself, is exactly what is supposed to happen in Wikipedia. With or without that redirect, if there are two or more articles that cover an area (no matter how small -- this isn't a paper encyclopedia, so there are no size or population requirements for articles on inhabited places) that could have an article at the title, we disambiguate them. A disambiguation page at Downtown Norwich's only potential drawback is getting in the way of the search results for "downtown norwich". Looking at those search results, it appears that the reader would be better served by the disambiguation page, since the search results "boil down" to the two entries listed. So, I still !vote "keep". -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be overlooking the whole WP:PRIMARYTOPIC thing. We don't do a dab page if there are two uses and one is the primary topic (which is what's being asserted here).--Kotniski (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (after ec) And in fact there aren't two uses. I would myself not allow there to be a hatnote at the top of the CT "Downtown Norwich HD" article pointing to the Norwich in NY, as there is no evidence that there is any "Downtown Norwich" named neighborhood there.  There may be zero valid uses:  the only evidence that the CT Norwich has a "Downtown Norwich" neighborhood is the existence of the HD named "Downtown Norwich Historic District", which has an article.  Whether it is one or zero valid uses, there is no need for a dab page.


 * (replying to JHJ, before ec) Well, new to this issue, it may be appropriate enough for JHJ to assume that Polaron's creation of the redirect was in good faith. But after many months of discussion with Orlady, Polaron, Acroterion and others, leading finally to an agreement that at least Polaron and I agreed to (and which I believe does not allow for redirects like this one), I do not judge that Polaron's actions here are done in good faith.  If Polaron wants to discuss the interpretation of the agreement that he agreed to, he should discuss it with invited mediator Acroterion and me and others at Talk:Acroterion or Talk:Poquetanuck or similar forum where the general agreement was discussed.


 * Back to this disambiguation page, it seems consensus here that at least one of the 2 items on the dab page should be deleted. So the conclusion here should be to delete the dab article.  Then, about replacing it with a redirect, that should be discussed in the Acroterion-mediated forums, or brought back to RFD, or (best) dropped as unnecessary.  I think no party here actually believes that the dab or redirect help wikipedia readers.  But the dab page should be deleted based on what has been discussed above, IMO. doncram (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kotniski: Who's asserting that there's a primary topic? It's not in the AfD proposal. Of course, I am aware of what we do when there's a primary topic: if there's a primary topic for "Downtown Norwich", then yes, the disambiguation page should have been moved to Downtown Norwich (disambiguation), where it could have simply been db-disambiged instead of AfDed. Doncram: If there's bad faith from some earlier agreement, you're right, other avenues should address that. I do not see the consensus here for anything; the !votes are evenly split 3 delete or redirect/2 keep/2 neutral (that's statistically even for this sample size). As I thought I stated clearly, I believe the dab helps Wikipedia readers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm asserting there's a primary topic, even if no-one else is (though it's implicit in the suggestion to change this to a redirect). I don't think this question is really difficult or important enough to warrant discussion - if it's a spillover from some past bitter dispute, then it's probably best if those who are emotionally involved to leave it alone, and let others come with a clear head and sort it out. Whatever the decision, it really doesn't matter very much. (So on that note, I've said all I'm going to here.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid i may have overstated matters. I wouldn't call it a "bitter dispute" and I misstated matters to be suggesting P was participating in bad faith.  I apologize for any overstatement.  In fact I also assume that P acted in good faith, in creating a dab page, perhaps following two related examples from the same RFD batch (out of a batch of several redirects, I converted one to a dab and Orlady changed a different one to a dab).  I believe that P is not as familiar with dab page guidelines and practices as JHJ and other dab wikiproject members/regulars are.  And I believe the ones that Orlady and I created are "more valid" for linking to real articles or sections that cover the topic, while this dab, linking to two articles that have no mention of the explicit topic, is inappropriate IMO.  Also, the effect of creating this dab, whether intentional or not, is to subvert the previous RFD to delete the redirect by creating a dab which is essentially an indirect redirect.


 * Bottom-line, here, there is consensus that the dab is inappropriate: at least Orlady, Kotniski and I agree that there is no need for the dab item on the NY Norwich, and it is significant that the linked article has no mention of a "Downtown" there.  If Polaron wants to revisit guidelines and agreement on the appropriateness of a redirect, there are forums for that, post the deletion of this dab.  Or, Polaron could research and write a separate article on the hypothesized Downtown Norwich neighborhood, or he could apply research to add a well-sourced mention of the neighborhood to the existing Downtown Norwich Historic District article (in which case I would agree to re-creating the redirect, except I would have to consider impacts on the agreement that he and I agreed to).  Thus there are thus several ways forward for P to take if he wishes for Wikipedia to carry mention of the hypothesized neighborhood.  But in the current absence of indication that there is an adequately important Downtown Norwich in either NY or CT, it is clear to me that the dab page should be deleted.  Let's please just resolve it that way. doncram (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I believe that in previous dab discussions with me, JHJ has several times stated that "dab pages are for disambiguating amongst Wikipedia articles", arguing for dropping red-links for proposed articles or for listing them lower down on a dab page. Here, there are no articles and no sections on any Downtown Norwich neighborhood, and in fact there is (correctly IMO) no mention of any "Downtown Norwich" whatsoever in either of the linked articles.  (Again, based on many other examples nation-wide, it would be incorrect to assume from the NRHP historic district name that there is a neighborhood of that name.  There are many thousands of NRHP HDs where there is not a corresponding neighborhood of the same name less "Historic District".  A reasonable assumption to make is that the NRHP HD is in the downtown area of Norwich, CT, but that is different.)  So, based on reasoning in past discussions about dab pages with JHJ, I kinda think JHJ should be against this existing as a dab page as well. doncram (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that these links, instead of being red, do lead to Wikipedia articles. OTOH, I thought I was agreeing with you when I !voted to keep, so we are both still misreading the other. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, for those redlinks, there is a minimum standard about what justifies having the redlink in the list of dab items. Namely that there is a regular (non-dab) wikipedia article which shows the same redlink, in effect asserting in mainspace that there is a valid wikipedia article topic of that name (spelled out at MOS:DABRL).  The redlink in the dab is valid only if there is a supportable mainspace assertion of the validity of the redlink topic.  The 2 items in this dab page however, are even lower, they are not even redlinks, and there is no assertion anywhere in wikipedia mainspace that "Downtown Norwich" is a neighborhood.  In reviewing Google hits on the phrase "Downtown Norwich", I am only seeing hits, even in the Norwich CT paper, where the article mentions a "downtown Norwich".  "Downtown Norwich" only appears in occasional headlines but only where all caps are used in the headlines, capitalizing minor words.  So, JHJ, i am curious what is the usual dab editor practice for such entries?  In some DAB page guideline i saw mention that references supporting entries should appear in the linked articles rather than on the dab page.  Where there are no references in any linked article, no mention of a term at all, in fact nothing to distinguish between something made up in thin air vs. something valid, am I correct to assume that such entries can be deleted on sight by any dab editor?  Your pointing to a relevant dab guideline clause would be appreciated. doncram (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The blue links are not "lower" than red links, because they are blue. Both links as listed indicate something that could be ambiguous with "Downtown Norwich" -- Downtown Norwich Historic District looks like a mouthful that would be commonly shortened as Downtown Norwich, and Downtown Norwich (New York) is ambiguous with a disambiguating parenthetical phrase. Again, if the redirect is in error, then it should be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The redirect Downtown Norwich (New York)) to the article Norwich (city), New York indeed is an invalid redirect and should be deleted. There is no downtown there.  Is that where we were misunderstanding each other?  It appears to be a made-up redirect to justify the dab page by having two items on it.  So it is in error, in your words.  And then you agree it is to be deleted, may I presume?


 * It's been a long time since I was last in downtown Norwich, NY, but unless it burned down since my last visit, that city does have a downtown. My comment was only to the effect that I can't imagine anyone expecting to find an encyclopedia article about that Norwich's downtown (separate from the article about the city). --Orlady (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, JHJ, now you are making up information, in your edit to the dab and your statement here that Downtown Norwich Historic District "would be commonly shortened as Downtown Norwich". That is just speculation!  There are hundreds or thousands of NRHP HDs where such speculation would not be true. doncram (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Using common sense is not making up information. A search (not in Google, but in a news database) turned up 0 occurrences of "Downtown Norwich Historic District" but hundreds of hits on "downtown Norwich", the first page of results including Connecticut, Ontario, and New York Norwiches. But if you're right, then the redirect Downtown Norwich (New York) should be moved to Downtown Norwich is the DNHD is an incorrect target, and then the redirect should be RfDed if it is also in error. I do not "agree that it is to be deleted" -- I have no opinion on its validity, which is where the RfD would come in (unless one of the speedy deletion criteria applies). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * At the head of this discussion, we are reminded that disambiguation is not needed where just two articles are involved. So Downtown Norwich should redirect to the most likely target Downtown Norwich Historic District with a hatnote "This article is about ... For other meanings, see Norwich (disambiguation).". Sussexonian (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That reminder is incorrect. Disambiguation is not needed where a primary topic and just one other article is involved -- in that case, the disambiguation page is titled "Title (disambiguation)". Disambiguation is needed where two articles are involved, if neither is the primary topic -- in that case (as here), the disambiguation page does not have the "(disambiguation)" qualifier. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wouldn't keeping this open the way for DABs for every place large enough to have a downtown and common enough to have more than one place of the same name? If I were searching for info on downtown Syracuse, I'd search Syracuse.  If I were searching for dowtown Phoenix, I'd search Phoenix.  I think it's beyond useless into at least mildly harmful. Lvklock (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was thinking it would be like making up other placenames too, like "Greater Norwich". Why not make new versions of every placename in wikipedia, with "Greater" or "Downtown" or "South" prepended? doncram (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Norwich (disambiguation) Mandsford (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District. Traffic stats for November:  Downtonw Norwich dab page: 56, Downtown Norwich Historic District: 65, Downtown_Norwich_(New_York), 3.  By the way, the RFD discussion could easily have closed as no consensus, there was substantial support for redirecting to the historic district. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC) See below for change


 * I don't get why you would want that. The Downtown Norwich HD is, no doubt, in the downtown area of Norwich, CT, but the HD article does not attempt to mention or describe any "Downtown Norwich" neighborhood and what relationship such a neighborhood would have with the HD.  It could be like linking to a "Downtown Norwich Pizza Shop", because a place of that name would probably be located in the downtown area as well.  No one has collected a copy of the free NRHP document that would enable the HD article to describe its relationship to any such neighborhood.  No one here knows whether the HD is at all similar in area or history to any neighborhood named "Downtown Norwich".  I object to allowing the dab creator to make argumentative, indirect assertions by creating redirects and dabs that effectively equate the HD and a supposed neighborhood.  It seems wrong to burden the NRHP HD article with a redirect, which creates an implicit need in the article to explain to some arriving readers why they have been redirected there. doncram (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: The nominator jumped the gun by closing the MfD early. Afd is for articles, not simply for pages in article namespace. - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * AfD is the usual venue for disambiguation pages. See Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with and Redirect to Norwich (disambiguation) - as others have said, downtown is a generic term. I'm sure anyone looking for an article on downtown Norwich can find the city.  I have already copied the 2 links from Downtown Norwich into Norwich (disambiguation), they are useful there regardless of the outcome of this AFD.  Yes, I know merging mid-AFD is generally asking for trouble.  WP:IAR. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.