Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/LoHo

LoHo does not warrant deletion
This attempt is unfounded, and there are references to prove its worthiness. Clearly from the exhaustive attempts by User:MosMof, this is a contentious topic, but I'd ask what for, and why? There are enough people who do call it LoHo ever since the real estate brokers renewed the name in 1996, that LoHo Studios had been using all along. Juda S. Engelmayer 20:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cited sources
Wiki asks for reliable non-self originated sources. It also tends to not like blogs. Yet, many of the pieces are bona-fide news reports from established media, and the blogs are either popular media-like spots, as is the New York Observer Real Estate blog, written by real reporters, and others using the name LoHo in various references to the area in question have been written years prior to this debate, prior to the Wiki LoHo entry being created. These are all pickups from what has become a popularized name over the past 10 years, not recent plants to support my or anyone else's theory.Juda S. Engelmayer 16:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Juda, I commend your effort, but you haven't addressed the one point that makes whether or not LoHo deserves a mention or an article: Reliable sources for neologisms:
 * To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term &mdash; not books and papers that use the term. (Note that Wiktionary is not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)


 * Neologisms that are in wide use &mdash; but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources &mdash; are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.


 * An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). (bolding mine)


 * Lower East Side, Manhattan has a profile in Village Voice, NoLIta in The Ne York Times, and even the recently created and rather obscure "SoHell" gets a New York writeup. And the one NYT article about LoHo deals with the debate, not the neighborhood.


 * If and when "LoHo" has gained enough traction as a neighborhood worthy of being mentioned alongside East Village and SoHo, it'll get these features. But as it is, the name fails WP:NEO, and all the other factors, like the term's origin or the number of time it's used or your background, are immaterial. Mosmof 09:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)