Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgian Triangle


 * 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. The two relists have not resulted in any further input, so it seems pointless relisting again. Michig (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Georgian Triangle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced article about an unofficial term for a poorly defined geographic region. While it's true that there are a few organizations in the Owen Sound and Collingwood areas that name themselves as "Georgian Triangle", the region has no official status, no clearly defined boundaries and no reliable source coverage about it as a thing. As always, per WP:GEOLAND, every local geographic neologism that exists at all is not automatically appropriate for a standalone article even if it's unsourceable -- we need reliable source coverage about it, not just primary source verification that the term exists, before it warrants an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I agree that just because granny in the cottage on the corner calls a path "cowpat lane" doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article, but this goes well beyond that. A placename does not have to be legally recognised to have an article, and characterising this as a neoligism is a bit inaccurate, I'm seeing references going back to at least the 1980s.  The proposer says that there are a few organisations with this name.  Well the Georgian Triangle Anglers Association (and quite a few others) might have just picked a clever-sounding name, but Georgian Triangle Development Institute, Georgian Triangle Economic Development Corporation, and Georgian Triangle Tourist Association were clearly set up to promote the commerce of the region.  As for the boundaries, we are up against paywalls and offline material here, but I would be astonished if somewhere in the book Mind the Gap: A Skills Gap Analysis Georgian Triangle Region, or one of the papers published by these development organisations does not clearly delineate where they think the boundaries of the triangle are.  For instance, this paper lists in its references "A profile of the tourism sector in the Georgian Triangle 1989" and "Georgian Triangle Tourism Study".  Several other papers are also referencing publications by the GTEDC so there is clearly a lot of information out there.  However, the best I can do from online material is Completing the Picture: An Opportunities Analysis of the Georgian Triangle which lists the municipalities in the Georgian Triangle right on the first page, and Industrial land development policy (for Collingwood) which says "Collingwood is the centre of a larger economic region called the Georgian Triangle,..." and discusses the Triangle throughout the paper. SpinningSpark 10:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, from the above this looks like a keep, if editors deem sources from a gsearch and what Worldcat has as primary/promotional, at the very least this should be a redirect (as a wikireader searchterm) to a paragraph at Southern Ontario. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:44, 3 November 2018 (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.