Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest buildings and structures in Mississauga


 * 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. Consensus favors deleting or merging as far as I can see. Basically it's a no consensus situation, but unlike most such situations there clearly is a consensus that there should not be a stand-alone article. If anyone is interested in actually doing the merge let me know and I will restore it so the relevant material can be merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

List of oldest buildings and structures in Mississauga

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:LISTN. Inclusion criteria appears to be arbitrary. It claims to be the oldest buildings in Mississauga, but some of the buildings listed are more than 100 years younger than the oldest buildings on the list. None of the buildings on the list have articles, suggesting that they're not notable. Without notable members, how can the list be notable? Pburka (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Pburka (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I removed all post-1912 listings. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: I agree that since none of the buildings themselves are notable enough to have articles, having a list of them isn't going to be notable. Perhaps, if someone were so inclined, an article could be made for History of Mississauga, which could include a section on historical buildings. The section on history in the main Mississauga article is fairly long right now, so there is a good start there. — Zujine |talk 05:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd also have to agree that since most or all of the buildings in the list aren't notable in their own right, there's little value in Wikipedia maintaining a list of them. Plus, genuinely curious, I looked at the edit history to see who had first created this -- shoulda known it was going to be an editor whose name still gives me the shivers, because his commitment to filling Wikipedia with content that ranged from trivial at best to incomprehensible nonsense at worst was so frustratingly unbreakable for so many years. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * merge There is an obvious  solution, so obvious it should have occurred to the author in the first place--merge into the article for Mississauga Not really appropriate for a separate article ; it would be appropriate content there.  DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Without the addition of reliable sources to demonstrate notability this content isn't appropriate in any Wikipedia article. Pburka (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I point out that the content of an article does not have to show notability -- see WP:N. notability  is a concept relating to whether there can be a separate article.  DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 04:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

 Delete or selective merge into Mississauga. This fails WP:LISTN because the buildings and structures of Mississauga are not discussed in reliable secondary sources as a group, as far as I can tell. A search doesn't turn up any such thing, although it's possible there are books somewhere (not on Google Books) that do treat these as a group. For now, until we can see that it's verifiable as a group, it should not be a standalone list. Note also that the notability of individual members of the list is irrelevant to LISTN: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" and "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". Hence because we haven't turned up anything that would establish this as a notable group of things, it falls short of the relevant notability guideline. Delete or merge into Mississauga if possible, but I suggest doing so selectively because a wholesale merger would clearly give this undue weight in that article. --Batard0 (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Smerge per DGG. I do not see how a selective merge back into the main article of the oldest or some of the larger and older buildings would do any harm to the Project. Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination is faulty: the criteria is very specific and individual entries are not required to have articles or need to be notable. But article does need to have a larger discussion of the topic in general, along with references. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:51, 16 October 2012 (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.