Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unwin Avenue


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Unwin Avenue

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A minor industrial street in the Portlands of Toronto with some abandoned buildings lining it. The places along the street may be notable, but the road itself is a local street. Delete as insignificant and failing WP:GNG (all provided references make trivial or passing mention of Unwin)  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  20:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a coutesy satellite view of this little street in a warehouse/port district. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  00:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I encourage this nomination to cite an actual policy, otherwise this looks like an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability and WP:GNG. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please offer specific passasges you feel apply here? Geo Swan (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
 * ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
 * These are probably the most applicable. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  01:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I did rely on original research at any point in this article.
 * Sorry, and how do you think this passage applies to this discussion? Are you suggesting this article lapses from some policy?  If so I request you be specific as to which policy triggers your concern, and to how you think it violates that policy.  Geo Swan (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're relying on articles you've admitted you haven't read to add pointless information to the article. Original research. Several of the sources you've added are completely trivial mentions of the street or properties along the street, which afford no notability; non significant coverage. The murder victim is WP:NOTNEWS.
 * Just because you've amassed every internet mention of Unwin Street doesn't qualify it for an article; it is not presumed. The last sentence applies to the highest degree: "For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
 * If you don't recognize these guidelines and policies, then you need to sit down and read the rules a bit before continuing to create articles on minor insignificant streets. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  14:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WRT to your characterization that I added "pointless information", no offense but this seems to me to be a further instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WRT WP:Original research -- please be specific as to which passages in the article you think lapse from OR and which passages of OR you think they lapse from.  As Unscintillating pointed out earlier, passages that lapse from OR is not a policy based justification for deletion.  It would be an editorial concern, that should be resolved through the normal process of editing and talk page discussion.   You've pointed out that Hearn Generating Station already has an article.  But the soccer pitches don't.  Does the soccer pitch merit coverage on the wikipedia?  Probably.  They took months to construct, were built to a high enough standard for a world tournament to be held there, and will be near enough to the atheletes' villages for soccer players to use during the Pan American games.  However, as the Pan Am games haven't been held yet, and that world tournament was not of one of the world class leagues we consider notable, the pitches don't merit an individual article.  In such cases the Unwin article is a good place for some coverage.  Amateur sports facilities in Toronto would be another candidate.   As I mentioned earlier the sentence that mentions the murder victim offers the context to the sentence that describes the monument.
 * I dispute I used every internet mention of Unwin Street. I used references that enabled the addition of information that I thought was encyclopedic.  The vast bulk of internet hits I did not use.   You and I seem to have vastly different interpretations of what is or isn't "an indisciminate collection of information".  As I believe you have already acknowledged Unwin Avenue is heaviliy contaminated due to the use of containminated landfill and the 19th century practice dumping effluent right into the Ashbridges Bay march.  If and when I come across an RS that says that, it can go into the article.  Stating it now would sail to close to a lapse from OR.  But using references that each have an environmental relation to the roadway.   Here on the wikipedia we use non-standard interpretations of "notable".  For non-wikipedians notable is usually a synonym for "remarkable" -- meaning worthy of mention.  There are documentable facts that are worthy of mention which don't rise to the level of making a topic "notable" using the wikipedia interpretation that the topic would be worthy of its own wikipedia article.  I don't think anyone needs to apologize for adding information that they think is worthy of mention thus "notable" using the real world interpretation of notable, if they think the notability of the article they are adding it to has already been established.   As I wrote above, roads that simply go from A to B, for which there are no references that say anything beyond that they go from A to B, or had routine maintenance, routine traffic accidents, etc., won't merit individual articles.  I have argued that Unwin Avenue is one of the minority of roadways that has RS that back up more than the routine "goes from A to B" and has had routine maintenance.   One of the other respondents here asserted that Unwin Avenue is not really different from a lot of industrial roads.  And I would suggest that any industrial road that has sufficient, significant RS to back up how it differs from mundane routine roads does merit an individual article.
 * Unwin Avenue has documented environmental concerns;
 * Unwin Avenue has merited coverage in many guides to strollers, tourists and bicyclists -- as I pointed already one of those guides devoted over a page to Unwin Avenue;
 * Unwin Avenue has facilities on it that merit coverage which have not risen to the level of being notable enough for their own articles;
 * Unwin Avenue is in the first stage of a redevelopment that will remove the aging industrial buildings, and see much of it turned into parkland and amateur sports facilities.
 * I suggest the points immediately above establish that Unwin Avenue rises to the level of wikipedia notability where it merits an individual article of its own. Geo Swan (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But you haven't even read some of the things you've found, so you are synthesizing. You've admitted this. The five points above apply to The Portlands in general, not specifically Unwin Avenue. Almost every street in downtown Toronto (most of which ARE NOT notable) has walking tour; again, these tours don't afford notability upon the street, but rather upon the various landmarks that line the street. WP:Wikipedia is not a directory. The fact that there are facilities on the street that aren't notable makes it just like every other urban street on the planet. My street has facilities on it that don't merit an individual article, but that doesn't make my street notable (how could it?). The redevelopment is red herring again, as that applies to The Portlands in general. You're concept of what makes roads notable would literally allow for articles on every 300 metre long side street in every major city in North America (all of which have numerous walking tours and guides). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  20:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I dispute that I acknowledged lapsing from SYNTH, or that I have in fact lapsed from SYNTH. I request specificity. WRT WP:Wikipedia is not a directory -- it lists 8 numbered types of directory, like "lists of aphorisms", "geneologies", "release notes" and "release notes".  I don't see how this article is remotely close to the potential problems WP:Wikipedia is not a directory warns against.   Could you please make a greater effort to avoid straw arguments?  Informal walking tours do not make a street wiki-notable, and I never asserted it did.  When PUBLISHED walking tours, and similar guides, describe a roadway in some detail, then I do assert that PUBLISHED source does help establish wiki-notability.  When the guide merely says "Proceed a further 400 meters west along Fubar Street to get from site of interest A to site of interest B.  But please don't mischaracterize the sources I used.  The Psychogeographic Stroll devotes over a page to Unwin Avenue.   Please make a greater effort to distinguish what is remarkable, notable, worthy of mention, using the real world interpretation of these terms from the non-standard interpretation of notability that merits an individual article.  WP:BLP1E guides those who work on biographies of living persons to not create an article for individuals who is only notable for one thing.  Rather that policy recommends that the remarkable thing about them should be covered in a broader, related article.  And, I suggest, the same principle applies here.  That soccer pitch is not notable in the wikipedia sense to merit its own article.  But it is remarkable enough to merit coverage on the wikipedia.  I feel my position is being seriously mischaracterized by your conflation of the different kinds of notability.   When a reference talks about environmental concerns on the Port Lands, in general, the main place that reference should be used to talk about environmental concerns is the article on the Port Lands.  But when a reference talks about specific environmental concerns that apply to Unwin Avenue alone, and don't apply to the Port Lands, in general, I suggest this builds the wiki-notability of Unwin Avenue.  Since I have used references that do apply specifically to Unwin Avenue please stop asserting that these references are better placed in the Port Lands article.  The exact same principle should apply to references that specifically address redevelpment of Unwin Avenue.   Finally, your characterization of my arguments as advocating "...articles on every 300 metre long side street in every major city in North America..." -- that is an irresponsible wild exagerration.  I do support an open-ness to articles on roadways where there are sufficient WP:RS to meet our standards -- regardless of the roadways' lengths.  I can't say for sure what roadways you support individual articles for, but from everything I have seen you write, here and elsewhere, you seem to support articles only on highways and some arterial roads, allowing no exceptions.  In fact, you have written as if that was already encoded in policy, or guideline.  I have asked you to cite where your position comes from.  And it seems to me you have not been able to cite a specific policy or guideline that bars the occasional exceptional roadway that is neither a highway or major arterial road from meriting an individual roadway, when there are otherwise sufficient RS to establish its wiki-notability.  Maybe this is not your position?  Would it be possible for you to be  clear on what your position actually is?  If you can agree to an article on the occasional, exceptional roadway that is neighter a highway or arterial road, when there are sufficient, significant RS, but you just don't agree that Unwin Avenue has sufficient RS, I would appreciate you clarifying that.  In that case I would appreciate you clarifying what kind of RS you would require to accept that a roadway that was neither a highway or major arterial road merited an individual article.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're missing number eight: "[Wikipedia is not] A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[3] Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight."
 * I was talking about published walking tours as well. Almost every street in downtown Toronto (including several very minor streets in that guide alone) is part of some tour of historical buildings and landmarks. This does not make the street notable. That you think this is the appropriate place to shoehorn details about places that you've deemed notable (yet admit aren't worthy of an article) doesn't make it so... in fact, this borders on WP:ILIKEIT, the opposite of what you have accused me of numerous times. The broader article in this case is the Port Lands article.
 * "That soccer pitch is not notable in the wikipedia sense to merit its own article. But it is remarkable enough to merit coverage on the wikipedia."
 * "When a reference talks about environmental concerns on the Port Lands, in general, the main place that reference should be used to talk about environmental concerns is the article on the Port Lands. But when a reference talks about specific environmental concerns that apply to Unwin Avenue alone, and don't apply to the Port Lands, in general, I suggest this builds the wiki-notability of Unwin Avenue." - What do the environmental effects of runoff from a snow disposal facility in the Port Lands have to do with the street network in the Port Lands? You are synthesizing the connection because the facility is on Unwin, but it has zero relevance to the road.
 * My position is that a bunch of sources (at least one of which you haven't read anything more than the title of, and thus should not be using in the article) is one half of a unique article. Significance is the other half, and this street has next to no significance (its use as a movie set is possibly the only exceptional event). Published walking tours are common place and should not be used as an indication that a street is notable (but rather often that the buildings and landmarks are). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  03:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Completely unremarkable street. Not historical. Not a major thoroughfare. Delete entirely and do not redirect. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible for you to refer to wikipedia policy or established convention in your comments? Even if, for the sake of argument, the conclusion of this discussion were for deletion, why, pray tell, would you preclude redirection?  It has been a standard practice for roadways not considered sufficiently remarkable for their own articles.   Geo Swan (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK I agree. Redirect to Port Lands. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know I already asked you this, but would it be possible for you to offer a policy based explanation for your comment? Geo Swan (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * keep -- Roadways that go from point A to point B, and don't have any references that say anything notable about them don't merit individual articles. They can be covered in articles like List of east–west roads in Toronto.  But when there are references that do say something notable about the streets, other than simply listing their terminii, then, I suggest, those articles should not be nominated for deletion.  Unwin Avenue had a natural history drafted about it.  Unwin Avenue has more than a page of commentary in one guide to pedestrians, and shorter mentions in several others.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A reference does not make an independent article (content does). Most of the roads at the lists have several sources as well as a paragraph or two of text. This doesn't even meet the criteria for inclusion in those lists because this is not a major thoroughfare in any respect. The first source you have provided is two pages; likely a historical manuscript compiled by a historian at the local library (I use a similar source on Vale of Avoca). I sincerely doubt this text describes the road in any detail, but in any event the fact that you can't fill in any more details in the ref tells me that you do not have access to it. The second reference makes casual mention of Unwin, as it prepares to describe the actually significant Hearn Generating Station and other monuments of an industrial city gone-by. These monuments, as I've said, may be notable in their own right, but they afford zero notability upon the street that they line.
 * If there was something of note here, I'd say merge it into List of roads in Toronto, but it doesn't even warrant inclusion there. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  22:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I do not have access to the natural history -- today.  I am mystified why you do not recognize that a two page guide to the Natural History of this particular street shows an author felt that topic was remarkable enough to publish.  I suggest that if the content of this guide was instead a two page chapter on Unwin Avenue, in a book on the Natural History of all streets near Toronto's waterfornt there wouldn't be any question that it would confer notability.  The Stroll reference does devote a page to Unwin Avenue.  As do several other guides to tourists and strollers.  You argue that it is really the monuments on the avenue that are notable.  If the authors of these guides agreed with you they would mention Unwin Avenue in a different manner.  Have you ever taken a pedestrian tour?  I've included references to several novels that have scenes set on Unwin Avenue.  While I must admit they aren't that exagerrated, I looked past the Gothic impression they felt when they drafted those passages.  Cherry Street between Unwin and the Keating Channel was the site of the first infestation of termites in Toronto.  That is worth remarking on.  The snow dump site on Unwin Avenue has had environmental consequences, as per the reference I added to the Civil Engineering Journal.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a good indication of notability when you haven't read it, for all you know it doesn't cover the street itself in any detail. All these things do not make Unwin street notable, they are a collection of events that took place at places along the street. There are passing mentions of several hundred minor streets in Toronto in the books on the heritage and walking tours (both of which I've read as well as hundreds of plaques and boards scattered about the city). This street is simply not in of itself important at all, nor is it a major road, nor does the city give it any significance in their street classification system. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You've read lots of books on Toronto's streets, gone on walking tours, read historic plaques? Why that's great!  That makes you well prepared to consider writing articles about some of them!  You realize that one of the reasons readers consult encyclopedia is so they can find in one spot all the information you found by reading those books, going on those walking tours, and reading those historic plaques.  You speculate that the document entitled "Unwin Avenue: Cherry Beach to Leslie Street : a natural history of the area in the 1980s" doesn't cover the street itself in any detail.  You speculated that the document is: "likely a historical manuscript compiled by a historian at the local library".  You realize that "natural history" is not the study of history?  It is an old-fashioned term for the study of plants and animals in the natural environment.  Since it was written in 1988, and its title says it is about the 1980s, Peuramaki is writing about the current state.   OK, what are you going to acknowledge is a level of detail you regard as sufficient.  I asked asked you if the information in this standalone document was instead a chapter of a book on the natural history of waterfront streets in Toronto you would acknowledgeit as a meaningful reference.   This is the shortest document I have seen that was turned up by google books.  Without reading it I am confident the document is not patent nonsense.  I am confident that google wouldn't have included it in their index if it weren't a serious document.  The greenbelt that borders Unwin Avenue has been present for forty years or more.  I think i came across some maps that showed the greenbelt had been part of the plan for the Portlands way back when the Ashbridges Bay marsh was filled in at the turn of the 1900s to form the portlands.  So even if Peuramaki was a terrible writer, and not a particularly good naturalist, I think it would hard to screw up the document so it wasn't meaningful.   I don't know if I will have a chance to do so before the afd runs its course, but I am going to go to the dead tree library and look for a dead tree copy of this document.  Geo Swan (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It makes me well prepared to know what in this built city is noteworthy. You haven't read the article, don't use it in the article, especially simply to write "In 1988, the author released this". Until you read it, it should not go in the article. For all you know, it merely covers the plant life in the lower Portlands, and the natural environment along the artificial lake shore. I say it is probably a local historian file because of its length. Any report or actual study would be far far longer. The length is irrelevant here; its the fact that you haven't read it and so you're entirely speculating on what it may or may not contain. Anyways, the Queen/Saulter library at Broadview is probably your best bet. Look for big filing cabinets labelled as the Local History Files.
 * Right now, I've acknowledged that the level of detail is going overboard. I'm sure a linguistics expert knows the term here, but the way you use a source to describe that source in the article is very indirect. An inappropriate tone I suppose? Again, this falls on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, seeing as the portlands was constructed as an industrial harbour in the early 1900s, I doubt there was ever a greenbelt plan. Those things came into being in the 1980s, which would tie in to the deindustrialization. South of Unwin near Leslie has always been unbuilt because its unstable garbage (literally!) -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It makes me well prepared to know what in this built city is noteworthy. You haven't read the article, don't use it in the article, especially simply to write "In 1988, the author released this". Until you read it, it should not go in the article. For all you know, it merely covers the plant life in the lower Portlands, and the natural environment along the artificial lake shore. I say it is probably a local historian file because of its length. Any report or actual study would be far far longer. The length is irrelevant here; its the fact that you haven't read it and so you're entirely speculating on what it may or may not contain. Anyways, the Queen/Saulter library at Broadview is probably your best bet. Look for big filing cabinets labelled as the Local History Files.
 * Right now, I've acknowledged that the level of detail is going overboard. I'm sure a linguistics expert knows the term here, but the way you use a source to describe that source in the article is very indirect. An inappropriate tone I suppose? Again, this falls on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, seeing as the portlands was constructed as an industrial harbour in the early 1900s, I doubt there was ever a greenbelt plan. Those things came into being in the 1980s, which would tie in to the deindustrialization. South of Unwin near Leslie has always been unbuilt because its unstable garbage (literally!) -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not notable at all.  Dough 48  72  00:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't see anything remarkable about this short street. Take a look on Google Street View at this street. It is a grimy industrial street, the kind you find in every city, down by the railroad tracks or along the waterfront. One wonders if the contributor intended the article as a memorial to the woman who was murdered there. Sadly, murders are not particularly notable either. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. On a substantial article I'd see no issue with a brief mention that "The body of foo, the xxth murder of 20xx, was found on the street. A memorial was subsequently erected at 450 Unwin.[ref]"... but in this context it falls on the line of WP:NOTNEWS. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  01:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You call Unwin a "a grimy industrial street, the kind you find in every city". I believe you are making two serious mistakes.  First the article has six environmentally related references, to five different environmentally related topics.  I suggest any of those "grimy industrial streets" where someone can find references to environmental concerns is likely ot merit coverage.  Second, I believe you are simply incorrect to conflate Unwin Avenue to those indistinguishable "grimy industrial streets".  The Toronto Islands, the Leslie Street spit, -- and the Portlands, are part of an important flyway as migrating birds cross Lake Ontario.  There is an environmentally significant greenbelt between Unwin Avenue and the shore.
 * Murders may not be notable in the United States. Happily Toronto has a significantly lower murder rate than similar size American cities.  This particular murder triggered significant public attention.  The Toronto Star managed a trust fund when its readers were upset that the young woman's family could not afford to travel to Toronto, or to pay for a funeral.  The monument I mentioned was valued at $30,000.  Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL.  I mentioned her murder as a prelude to explaining the location of the monument.  Geo Swan (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS still applies to Canada. Almost all murder victims lack articles. The main exceptions are child abductions or missing persons that show up weeks later (such as Miriam who was found last week in Hoggs Hollow). As for the environmental concerns, most of these regard the industrial lands throughout the Portlands, and such details are better confined to that neighbourhood article. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think you are advancing straw arguments. We are not discussing articles named the murder of Leanne Freeman, or the Leanne Freeman monument on Unwin Avenue.  Rather we are discussing an article on Unwin Avenue that currently devotes two dozen words or less to a monument on that roadway.  Your suggestion that the environmental concerns were shared with the rest of the portlands would hold merit -- if none of the concerns were specific to Unwin Avenue.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a verbal road atlas: we only cover the roads and streets that are of above-average significance.  Wikipedia is not a street directory, and some of the arguments presented here (e.g. Geo Swan's comments) would result in a street directory if carried as far as possible.  Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This minor industrial street links some noteworthy sites and has some name recognition in Toronto for being both a link to recreational sites along the waterfront and for its distinct atmosphere of industry, but is not noteworthy enough to merit inclusion as a separate article at this time. The article fails to make it clear or even possible that Unwin Avenue is significant in terms of factors such as history, geography, engineering, or urban design. There is nothing to suggest that such significance could be established in future edits. It's conceivable that some article will emerge establishing notability because it's, for instance, "the most contaminated street in Toronto" referencing the continuous vacant industrial properties along its length, but this is just speculation for the sake of example, not rooted in anything concrete at this point. A.Roz (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge Keep  The first item on a Google search for [Unwin Avenus, Toronto] returns a map, so it is easy to prove that this topic is not a hoax.  A search on [Unwin Avenue site:en.wikipedia.org] returns 13 unique pages, so the redirect is proven to be useful.  I see no argument being made, and I am not aware of any such argument, that there is something objectionable about the edit history such that we need to delete it.  That leaves no deletions to discuss, and therefore, no need for a deletion discussion.  In summary, this is simply an ordinary article that needs to be improved or merged, both of which are topics for the talk page of the article, not the time of AfD volunteers.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; the discussion is taking place here. Articles are deleted for far more reasons than being a hoax, having no hits on google or having an objectionable edit history. There are plenty of arguments, above, for you to object to, but ignoring them does not make them go away. You are essentially voting keep on a very weak edge-case claim of not following procedure. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  05:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The simple summation of my response is...there is nothing wrong with my !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, except WP:NOTAVOTE. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to merge as a compromise position, as the Port Lands article is a good target that will be strengthened with the reliable sources from the existing article. Unscintillating (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Although I'd support merging it into Port lands (or another larger region). Bunston (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See Port Lands. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note the author of this article is desperately shoehorning every insignificant trivial mention of Unwin Street into this article. As I raised at the talk page of the article, a substantial portion of this article is WP:PUFFERY. It has quickly descended into a completely indiscriminate collection of information. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * and Coming Soon from the same fabulous producer who brought you Unwin Avenue - get ready for the new sensational User:Geo Swan/Cherry Street (Toronto) and User:Geo Swan/Blue Jays Way. I just can't wait. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Amazing that an article on an insignificant little street could generate this much discussion! •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikipuffery + Fancruft. I also love Toronto. Torontobrad (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Although User:Torontobrad seems quite familiar with wiki essays, this ID has only made 5 edits, here in this afd, to Unwin Avenue, and to User:Torontobrad. Geo Swan (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate this too George. It distorts the entire discussion. Please stand up and show us who you really are. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed; the above delete !vote should be discounted as a WP:SPA. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete doesnt appear to be notable enough for a stand alone article, only mention in Port Lands is part of description of roads in the area. Doesnt appear to have any history or features that cant be mentioned in Port Lands. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect. I removed some content from the article that isn't about the street in question. (If there were murders that were notable along the street, the murders should have an article of their own.) The termite infestation, while mildly interesting, has nothing to do with this street. The article states that it was along an adjacent street, and the only connection to Unwin Avenue was that Unwin was at the end of the infestation zone. What's left makes a nice tidy paragraph in total that could be added to the Port Lands article. It's all tangentially connected and doesn't rise to the level, IMHO, to satisfy notability requirements for a stand alone article.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you should choose -- either leave your opinion at the afd, or address editorial concerns you have with the article. I addressed this issue on the talk page.  My advice to those who go on record that an article merits deletion concluded with advising them to resist any temptation to make routine editorial changes to the article -- at least until the afd concluded.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you have misread the termite infestation references. The parcel of land bounded by Unwin Aveneu, Cherry Street, the Keating Channel and Toronto Harbour is about 200 acres and is pierced by three slips, and has room to moor a dozen or so freighters  In the 1930 and 1940 that area was all devoted to port facilities.  The termite infestation entered Ontario through these port facilities.  I think it is clear the entomology articles are refering to that parcel of land -- not to Cherry Street alone.  During the 1930s and 40s freighters also used mooring spots along the south shore Toronto proper, whereas today the Jarvis slip alone remains in use.  The authors were distinguishing the parcel it described from the several miles of alternate mooring spots.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly! That block is part of the Port Lands. Which is the point being made over and over. 70.49.169.254 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Please cite a policy that says I must only express an opinion in this discussion or edit the article but not both. I removed tangential content from the article and unneeded references. (Seriously, we needed three references that a street exists? Given the uncontroversial nature of that statement, no references are needed!) Once I did that, I formulated my response here. Long-winded replies that tell me I'm not allowed to edit the article (this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit after all) and have an opinion on the suitability of retaining this content as a stand alone article comes across as harassment. It's unwarranted, so please retract that.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this is list of some mentions of the street. Notability not inherited from all this. Martin Morin (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete GeoSwan, please go start your own Wikia. - Frankie1969 (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator has changed the nomination without letting readers know that it has been changed.  The result is that a following comment is now out of context.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't effect the nomination in any way; I've added additional details. What comment is out of context (besides your contextless comment on how you believe there is no rationale)? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  01:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Diff. Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That editor placed their !vote well after I made that change; that change just added more policies to the nomination. I encourage you to cite any policy, guideline, or even essay which discourages this, let alone forbids it. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  02:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk page guidelines states,
 * Well, this is not a talk page (if we want to be lawyering things to the word), and a nomination is different from a comment. I adjust my rationale. Again, this doesn't affect the discussion. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  03:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As per the WP:TPG lede, "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." Unscintillating (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I stand by my changes though. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

*Comment No one has as much as attempted to refute my argument that there is no case for deletion. It now becomes the burden of an admin to defend policy against what is nominally a majority !vote, although looking beyond the word in bold, a decent consensus to merge this article in its entirety to Port Lands appears. Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted, but this is a community consensus, and not your opinion of how this venue works. Plenty of policy has been presented, you have chosen to ignore it by tossing it aside with a snide comment:"The simple summation of my response is...there is nothing wrong with my !vote". Hypocritical at best. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  01:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, here is the edit comment for the previous post, "You need to learn how AfD works Unscintillating, I see you trying to push this same old garbage all over AfD. Your opinion is not the community consensus, that doesn't make this a !vote)". Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So? Are you attempting to discredit me, or are you going to address how I've discredited your WP:WIKILAWYERING, a problem which your talk page shows isn't recent? Or perhaps you just trying to create a WP:SOAPBOX? Regardless, can either you address your fallacious comments, or the closing admin ignore them? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  02:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the previous post brought anything new to the discussion, this is consistent with my hypothesis that there is a consensus here. Unscintillating (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It adds that you are wikilawyering, that you have been told not to on your talk page several times, and that your vote should be ignored if you can't be bothered to respond, since its a simple case of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but can't find any actual policy, so just going to vote keep on the basis of the nomination itself." Your response above says it clearly to me "No, I cannot address my fallacious comments". Your argument that there is no case for deletion has been refuted numerous times with numerous policies. Or perhaps WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is the game you're playing. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that you read my !vote instead of continuing to assert obvious contradictions like no "actual policy" when two are cited. I'm not actually sure what your objective here is given that you have contributed to the apparent consensus to merge to Port Lands, and this AfD seems to be at a stopping point.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment there is no point in arguing about whether there is consensus; the closer will judge, based on the policy based comments about this particular article  DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is deeply undermining since from my viewpoint I've had to be strong to find ways to bring the conversation back on track instead of responding to the personal attacks, incessant baiting, ad hominems, red herrings, and misdirections; but since keeping a steady hand in the face of abuse and being effective in turning the disruption into a consensus is now undermined; let me take a George Romney approach after the dirt slinging got to the point that he had to respond. Nominator has stated recently on a user talk page that coming to AfD was done because the previous forums didn't have the participation that he/she wanted, this is evidence of Forum Shopping and abuse of process.  Nominator exhibits a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality in wanting to win.  The admin asserts illogically that there is "no point" to building consensus, instead of admonishing wikilawyering disruption.  This is my last comment at this AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done no such thing, but thank you for your false accusations (perhaps in some cases I have gone to the talk page first, but that is certainly not forum shopping, especially when there is no response. In this case, the stuff I raised on the talk page was an aside from this and took place after the nomination) Unlike you, I don't have several sections on my talk page of people complaining about my view of how afd works and wikilawyering. This venue is for the community to discuss the merits of keeping or not keeping an article, or what to do with the article. Despite the title "articles for deletion", plenty of discussions take place without deletion as the sole objective. If responding to each point makes this a battlefield to you, then you may wish to avoid afd discussions in the future. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Now, as for the article I accept Geo's argument: there is sufficient sourced information to show notability . The discussion of the individual incidents would be relevant if the question were whether the individual elements are notable--but nobody is saying that. The arguement rather is because ofthe number of things appropriate to mention in an encyclopedia, the street itself is notable --notable because of the things that happen there. (we're not arguing whether the physical structure of the street is notable, the street is a geographical place, meaning the area consisting of the street and the properties bordering on it. that's been abundantly shown. If the street is non-notable, it could only be because there aren't sources for these things, and there are reliable sources for them. The relevant guideline in this case is the GNG--whether or not it should always be used as the guideline for notability, it certainly is appropriate to use it   when it's hard to state exactly what would apply otherwise. Doing anything else is ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT, rather than policy.  DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A street does not include the properties bordering on it. If they are notable, they should get an article. Notable places do not make a street notable, the street needs to be notable in its own right. We already have an article on the cruise ship terminal and the Leslie Street Spit, so what is left is soccer pitches and a snow dump that impart notability to Unwin. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:PUFFERY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTDIR are all policies/guidelines presented here, in addition to claiming it doesn't meet WP:GNG. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be Cherry Beach Sports Fields - and then there was one. 50.100.185.239 (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:FANCRUFT and WP:PUFF are essays -- not policies. Geo Swan (talk) 17:35, 21 March 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.