Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-Canadian cities with a Canadian namesake


 * 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 keep. The consensus here is to keep the article, but to seriously consider renaming the page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

List of non-Canadian cities with a Canadian namesake

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

List of places in other countries which happen to have a namesake in Canada, without regard to whether either place was named for the other or not. Richmond, British Columbia was not, for instance, named after Richmond, New South Wales or vice versa -- they merely happen, through different processes of relevance to Canada and Australia, to both be named for the same historical person. And neither are Kinmundy, Alberta and Kinmundy, Illinois relevant to each other just because they were both named after the same third place in Scotland, nor do Warsaw, Ontario and Warsaw, New York have a defining connection to each other just because they were both named after the one in Poland. Certainly some places in this list had the Canadian settlement directly named after them, which might be legitimate to note in a very different list than this one, but we don't need a list of every single place name in any world country that merely happens to also exist in Canada for completely independent reasons. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Some entries on the list are indeed correct, such as Bruxelles, Manitoba being the namesake of Brussels. But many other entries--probably most--are inaccurate or not supported by the sources cited. Hull, Quebec may or may not be the namesake of Kingston upon Hull; the source cited to support this does not even mention Kingston upon Hull.  As well, many entries are sourced by the Geographical Names Data Base (GNIS), which contains no information about the history of the places it lists (so how can GNIS support that this place is named after that place)?  The article also lists a number of Canadian cities which are the namesake of some non-Canadian "place" that is not even a city, such as Waterloo, Ontario being the namesake of the Battle of Waterloo, and Grimsthorpe, Ontario (an redirect with no article) being the namesake of Grimsthorpe Castle.  This article as it is, is misleading and of little use to Wikipedia readers.  Delete (and save to a draft if requested). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnolia677 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep The objections to the entries on the list are all mistaken. Most of the entries on the list are supported by the reference cited in the "notes" column. There are some do not have a citation; those are supported by the Wiki page for the Canadian city. Now many of the citations just take you to the Googlebooks page for the book and it's up to the user to type the name of the city in the search field to find the actual cite. This was done in an effort to keep the total number of citations for this page to a resonable number. If every cite took you to the exact page, there would be several hundred citations for this list. If someone thinks that's desirable, I can do that. But it's not a reason to delete the page. OK, let's take the specific objections in order:


 * Richmond, BC -- cite is British Columbia Place Names. Direct link: Richmond Googlebooks won't let me copy the page, but it says that someone's daughter named it after her favorite place in Australia and this pre-dates someone else's claim that it's named after a place in England.
 * Kinmundy, Alberta -- cite is Community Place Names of Alberta. Direct link: Kinmundy Again it won't let me copy and paste, but it does in fact say it was named for Kinmundy, Illinois, the hometown of the first postmaster. Kinmundy, IL was named for the Scottish place, but that's irrelevant to this list.
 * Warsaw, Ontario -- cite is Place names of Ontario. While Googlebooks has this book, all it has is snippetview. Unfortunately doing a search does not turn up the entry for Warsaw (the search function on Googlebooks is flakey at times and this is one of them.) I did not use Googlebooks, but rather checked the book out from the library. If I put it in the list, then the book actually says it was named for the place in New York and not the city in Poland. You'll have to take my word for it or check the book out of the library yourself.
 * Hull, Quebec -- The cite given says "Hull Township got its name from the city of Hull in Yorkshire, Eng. ". Ok. so where is Hull, Yorkshire? Go to the page for Hull, Yorkshire and you'll find it redirects to Kingston upon Hull and the first thing it says after the pronunciation is "usually abbreviated to Hull".
 * Cites to GNIS -- GNIS is a resource for USA places; this page uses the Canadian equivalent. However, it only uses them to establish that the place in Canada actually exists, not that it's named for another city. That's because not all places in Canada have their own Wikipage. All those with cites to this database also have an additional cite in the "notes" column that establishes that it was named for the non-Canadian city.
 * Places named after non-cities, i.e. castles. If you read the lede, it says that " the namesakes are places (cities, towns, villages) in Canada that are named for a city, town, village, or institution such as a castle or country house in some other country." (emphasis added) OK, that part is not in the page's title, but there's only so much you can put in a title before it gets too unwieldy. Perhaps the title needs to be modified. If you think so, please make a suggestion as to what it should be. But it's not a reason to throw out the whole page.
 * Places named for battles such as Waterloo: These are indirect namings. The city in Ontario was named for the battle but the battle was named for the town it was fought at. I see no reason to object to these. (And if we do remove them, at some future time someone else will come along and add them. You can pretty much bet on that.)


 * I felt this was a useful addition to Wikipedia. If I didn't, I wouldn't have expended all the time and effort to compile it.
 * Dtilque (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to note:
 * Waterloo, Belgium is of course a city, and the Battle of Waterloo is named after the city.
 * Grimsthorpe is a village in England after which Grimsthorpe Castle is named.
 * I think the page is useful. Even if a few of entries need to be amended or deleted later, or need better citations, the great majority of them seem to be valid, so there seems to be no reason to delete the whole page. Green Wyvern (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This list is actually interesting; and there is no point in deleting articles which may need to be recreated some time in the future.  Impressively intensive. And very well-sourced. Claverhouse (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We keep or delete stuff based on whether or not the content is encyclopedic, not whether or not the content is interesting to somebody. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Claverhouse.  Some of us find the page interesting and useful, so what purpose is served in deleting it?Jamesdowallen (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We keep or delete stuff based on whether or not the content is encyclopedic, not whether or not the content is interesting to somebody. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Would that be the Royal We ? encyclopedic is a very subjective term, however there is nothing in this article that could not have been included in print encyclopedias of the distant past. Claverhouse (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep but Rename to something that addresses the apparent misconceptions by the nominator that are addressed by Dtilque. For example Canadian cities named after cities elsewhere, or List of non-Canadian cities which have Canadian cities named after them, to clarify that this is not a list of cities which just happen to share a name.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been suggested to me elsewhere that I change it to something very much like that, where the emphasis is on Canadian cities rather than cities in other countries. That would reduce some confusion about the list. It would require some work, since the tables would have to be reordered to put the Canadian cities first. It would also open the list up to more than one Canadian town per foreign city, but this would not result it a great expansion of the list. Unlike, for example the US, where there are a dozen or more places named after many large European cities and even several each named for certain more obscure places. I'm amenable to doing this, but I'm not going to make any changes to the list until this deletion issue is resolved. Dtilque (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my intention for the title change to require a re-jigging of the list, just that the title should clarify that these are cities named after other cities, rather than simply cities sharing the same name. Perhaps something more along the lines of List of non-Canadian cities which have Canadian cities named after them--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Rename there's nothing wrong with a List of Canadian cities named after other cities, though I hope a better name can be found than my suggestion. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep WP:SK, "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question", or in this case the talk page of the article.  WP:BEFORE C3 states, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page".  This AfD has quickly turned into the author providing explanations to the nominator, that are proof that no attempt was made to discuss this BEFORE nomination.  Nor is there an argument for deletion, since "we don't need list" is not to be found on policy-based WP:DEL-REASONs, so WP:SK also applies.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Unscintillating. There is no real criterion for deletion put forth in the nomination. Ifnord (talk) 01:56, 13 November 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.