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


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This huge list has no clear inclusion guidelines and scant few sources. Is it supposed to be a list of the few building that have survived from the pioneer days, or is it a list of all vaguely "old" buildings in the city of Toronto? It really needs to be deleted and not restarted until the inclusion guidelines have been set (and perhaps a new title) and some souces found.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove all buildings under one century old and/or remove every building that does not have a heritage designation. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Re: your first idea, why 100 years?  Re: your second, in that case rename to "Listed heritage buildings in Toronto" (or similar) or better yet turn it into a cat.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would comment on my own comment: It would be better to include only heritage-designated buildings, regardless of age, but preferably if they are at least a century old, since it would help shorten the list and would make a good cutoff point. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 01:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good grief. There's a building from 1948 in that list. There are people still not yet retired older than buildings on this "list of old buildings". I shudder to think what a "List of Old Buildings in London" (England, not Ontario) would look like. Maybe make it a list of notable buildings in Toronto, and gut the list. But as it stands its hideous. MadScot (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem: there is already something like that. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 01:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, for reasons given, plus an AFD right off the bat seems inappropriate with no prior effort to clean it up by the nominating editor, no tagging in an effort to have it cleaned up, and no comments on its talk page by the nom since April. I'll also add that the Toronto landmark template is A: a template, not an article, and B: rather different from the suggested heritage list. I believe that after this AFD is resolved it should pared down to include only heritage buildings and the rest either tossed or merged with more appropriate articles. Westrim (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rebuild as "pre-Confederation ..." 70.51.8.158 (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep When I read the nomination and the Good Grief comment I had not looked at the article and expected something hideous. That is not the case.  The nominator did not really invoke any WP guideline or policy violation as reason for deletion, so why would we delete it?  I agree the article needs a solid lead-in to set inclusion criteria and better in-line (not table-cell) source citations.  Indeed the title could be improved to something like this (just an example of a better title in this context) List of pre-20th century buildings and structures in Toronto. A list title can indeed clarify inclusion criteria.  IMHO this is exactly the type of navigational list that makes WP a comprehensive and easy-to-use encyclopedic research tool.  This one just needs to be cleaned up style wise.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but trim the newer buildings. Talk:List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto) has a discussion on the desired contents of the page from last year.  The suggestion of "A comprehensive list of everything surviving from prior to Confederation should be possible, and after 1867 the list could only be those buildings that are prominent enough to have their own Wikipedia articles" makes sense to me. I was curious to see how the list would change and evolve, but I agree it is time to set some guidelines and enforce them.  It seems excessive to delete the page and start over when the solution is simply to lop off some of the newer tables.   Hilmar (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up. I agree that better inclusion criteria are needed for the article but that can be cleaned up with an appropriate introduction and trimming. Perhaps the 100 oldest buildings or pre-Confederation buildings; whatever can be hammered out on the article's discussion page. The idea and start of the article themselves are solid. Double Blue  (Talk) 19:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up. This is an important list. Much is notable architecture in terms of British North America; some is important in terms of world architecture. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2008 (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.