Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legacy, Calgary


 * 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 merge to List of neighbourhoods in Calgary. Circular arguments shall be avoided. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric  06:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Legacy, Calgary

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a city neighbourhood, which is not a well-established community with a properly sourced or notable history, but a new residential subdivision which didn't exist before the 2010s. This is also skewed quite visibly in the direction of an advertorial for the development -- including, until I stripped it just now, a comprehensive directory of offsite links to the websites of the property developer and every individual contracting company involved in the construction. (I was also planning to rap the photo of Jane Seymour as being here for no real reason besides "Hey, look, a celebrity endorses us!", but it turns out she was the sculptor of the artwork she's standing next to -- though I still suspect the photo's core purpose here was advertorialized in nature.) And the referencing isn't cutting it under WP:GNG either: six of the eight sources are primary ones, and one of the two that actually count as real media coverage just namechecks its existence in a broad concept article about general trends in residential development, while the one source that's actually about the neighbourhood is a Q&A interview with an employee of the development firm. Which means none of these sources cut the mustard at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   FITINDIA   15:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep based on longstanding consensus that every neighbourhood in major Canadian city is notable in and of itself, but obliterate the promotional content. This article started as an acceptable stub but has been expanded for promotional purposes by IPs in the 184s and an editor with ties to a developer. It went undetected by me due to my relative inactivity over the past couple years, but I am committed to trim the crap to at least get it back to an acceptable stub. When I have more time, I can swing back to expand as much as I can in a neutral manner, if and others can be patient. Priorities in life are elsewhere at the moment. Would be pleased to receive some help from others if they feel inclined. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There isn't actually any "longstanding consensus" that every neighbourhood in every city is an automatic keep. The actual established consensus, per WP:GEOLAND, is that places with legal status (i.e. incorporated towns and cities) are automatically presumed notable just for existing, while places without legal status (e.g. neighbourhoods) are notable separately from their parent city only if they're reliably sourceable as able to clear WP:GNG. Even in Toronto, there are plenty of neighbourhoods that either don't have articles at all, or exist on Wikipedia only as redirects to the most appropriate larger topic. The neighbourhood I live in, for example, does not have an article of its own, and neither does the different neighbourhood in the different city where I grew up — both are simply addressed as short subsections of larger related articles (my current neighbourhood in the article about the much larger, much better known and much more sourceable neighbourhood it's adjacent to; my childhood neighbourhood in the article about the incorporated town it was part of before it got citified by a municipal amalgamation.) But neighbourhoods are not given an automatic notability freebie just because they exist; the standards for neighbourhoods are different from the standards for the cities as a whole. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , the longstanding consensus I'm referring to is that all residential neighbourhoods in Calgary and Edmonton have been deemed notable enough by the editing community to warrant their own articles. This article was created in good faith based on the precedent that all others had articles. Surely there is enough coverage out their to help this pass GNG. If this is deleted on these grounds, surely dozens and dozens of Calgary's other ~200 residential neighbourhoods are eligible to suffer the same fate as well. I'd much rather see a single deletion discussion of a large volume of these similar articles rather than picking them off one-by-one, such as is currently and suddenly the case with this, Nolan Hill and Sage Hill, Calgary despite years of Calgary residential neighbourhood article stability. It is not an efficient process. I cannot comment on your Toronto and presumably Sudbury examples as I don't know what standing they have, but in Calgary and Edmonton these are neighbourhoods officially defined by the cities themselves, not much different than how a province divides itself into municipalities. By all means if an urban residential neighbourhood in a major Canadian city gets deleted while discreet and unknown localities such as Deep Creek, Alberta survive their own deletion nominations, logic is defied and consideration of a new official consensus at WP:GEOLAND or elsewhere should be considered. (Note: I've just uncovered some ambiguity at GEOLAND in which I've sought some interpretation advice.) Hwy43 (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither Calgary nor Edmonton gets to set its own special city-specific consensus about the notability of individual neighbourhoods that's different from the notability criteria for individual neighbourhoods in any other city. Historically, Wikipedia was a lot more loosey-goosey about a lot of its inclusion criteria; all geographic articles were always granted an automatic presumption of notability regardless of whether they could be properly sourced as notable or not, leaving us with lots of bad and virtually unimprovable articles about geographic entities that nobody really needs an article about because there's nothing to say beyond "this exists" — but as in many other subject areas, our inclusion criteria have been considerably tightened up over the years to become much more dependent on reliable sourcing, and much less prone to "automatic inclusion freebie just because it exists, whether sourceable or not" exemptions. So no, Calgary and Edmonton don't get to set their own special "city neighbourhoods in Alberta" consensus that's any different from city neighbourhoods in Ontario or Alabama or Scotland or Gauteng or Tamil Nadu or Queensland — they have to follow WP:GEOLAND, period. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of neighbourhoods in Calgary, as per WP:ATD-M. North America1000 02:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Consensus is that individual Calgary neighborhoods are notable. As mentioned above, if people disagree, picking them off one by one is not the way to do it. Smartyllama (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no such consensus — Calgary neighbourhoods are subject to the same considerations, namely WP:GEOLAND, as neighbourhoods anywhere else, and Calgary gets no special privilege to set its own special notability criteria for neighbourhoods different from GEOLAND. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Per and .  SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 01:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  09:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of neighbourhoods in Calgary as neighborhoods that do not otherwise meet GNG based on independent coverage, are not notable per WP:GEOLAND. MB 17:16, 6 July 2017 (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.