- 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) f e minist 03:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Burano (building)
- Burano (building) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. I researched here: Talk:Burano_(building)#research_for_notability -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Like i just wrote at similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casa Condominio Residenza, content (48 stories, 149 meters tall?) in article suffices to establish it is a major thing, and in my opinion it is useful for many readers to have coverage over such a thing which affects so many lives. It's like this is a geographic feature, i don't care that it is man-made. This is just shorter than the current threshold to be included as an item in the List of tallest buildings in Toronto article, i guess, otherwise redirecting to a row in the list-article could be an alternative to deletion. So just keep. -- do ncr am 02:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- As, I wrote at the other article where you made the same claim: Please show me any standard for notability that has to do with size. How can you claim "it affects so many lives"? Do you have WP:RS for that? Why would it need to be in a list article if it is not notable? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC) -- do ncr am 04:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Major buildings such as this one are often notable. Firstly, it has the equivalent population of a small town — in itself, it is a named, significantly populated place. Secondly, a quick online search finds plenty of news stories that at least mention this building. Thirdly, I found that the first two storeys of the building have been designated as a heritage building under the Ontario Heritage Act, a notable and very unusual feature in a modern residential skyscraper. There has simply been a lack of effort in establishing notability in the article. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 12:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Jacknstock: Please add the WP:RS that you found and mention the specific articles here. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator
David Tornheim says he tried his best to comply with
WP:BEFORE, prior to making the nomination. Sorry, I am going to agree with the other contributors, above, that nominator's efforts fell short.
Heritage buildings, where their heritage designation is documented, are generally likely to be notable, and the Burano is an example of facadism because the developers incorporated the facade of the 1925 building.
I can't imagine why nominator withheld this information from casual observers of this AFD.I added a couple of the references. Geo Swan ( talk) 23:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
-
Geo Swan I appreciate your effort to find new
WP:RS. If it is good, I will withdraw the nomination. Perhaps, you know the sources better than I. However, please strike your claim that "I can't imagine why nominator withheld this information from casual observers of this AFD."
WP:AGF and focus on content not editors. If you don't strike the claim I will add a warning to your talk page about "casting aspersions". --
David Tornheim (
talk) 01:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see a withdrawal of the nomination. Was it good? Jack N. Stock ( talk) 05:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
-
Geo Swan I appreciate your effort to find new
WP:RS. If it is good, I will withdraw the nomination. Perhaps, you know the sources better than I. However, please strike your claim that "I can't imagine why nominator withheld this information from casual observers of this AFD."
WP:AGF and focus on content not editors. If you don't strike the claim I will add a warning to your talk page about "casting aspersions". --
David Tornheim (
talk) 01:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I made this relevant post about the claimed
WP:RS for more eyes on this subject:
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Urbantoronto.ca --
David Tornheim (
talk) 01:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- There's quite a lot of reliable information once I started digging, partly because of the heritage building at the base. The builders dismantled the historic facade and meticulously reconstructed it above a seven-floor underground parking lot. As for the article itself, we've gone from two sources to thirteen (just about to add the thirteenth), while increasing both accuracy and detail, with all facts verified. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 02:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate your doing more research. This article about the issue of the dealership might might be considered toward notability. That don't sound as much like an advertisement as this article also from the same source ( thestar.com) regarding the other building we have been discussing. However, it might be that McLaughlin_(automobile) motor car showroom is what is notable rather than the building in its former lot.
- A number of the references you are adding are
WP:PRIMARY sources, such as the document of the Toronto Design Guidelines from the Planning Dept
[1],
The Heritage impact statement,
similar doc and
developer's website. Probably all of that will have to go. I will post this on the article talk page too. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 04:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- The architect that wrote the Heritage Impact Statement (E.R.A. Architects Inc.) was a third party, not the architect for the building. This is WP:INDEPENDENT rather than a WP:PRIMARY, as independent, third party opinion was required to satisfy the heritage conservation laws. Also, primary sources are allowed in WP, provided the editor is not providing interpretation: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I have not added any interpretation or synthesis (i.e., WP:OR) in the article, only rephrasing to avoid copyright violation. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 04:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Regarding the potential notability and historical significance of the showroom, I made this post on WikiProject History:
- --
David Tornheim (
talk) 04:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's not the plaque itself that is used as a source, but the article about the plaque. Again, this is not me visiting the building and taking a photo of the plaque (or perhaps artfully creating a picture of a non-existent plaque), but an independent source.
Jack N. Stock (
talk) 04:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- The "article" with the plaque is a self-published website, written by a librarian rather than a historian. I very much doubt that meets our
WP:RS requirements. See for example:
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RS_for_WWII_--_ww2today.com_.3F which is also self-published website by someone who is not a historian. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 06:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
-
David Tornheim -
here are the 338 page views for the three months preceding your nomination. That is about 100 page views per month. If I had written this article I would feel satisfied 100 people reading it, per month, was sufficient to show my time was well spent. I'd settle for 20 people per month.
You've made some minor challenges, as to whether some of the references are PRIMARY sources. You suggested that the PRIMARY references "will have to go". Jack N Stock pointed out that your suggestion that PRIMARY references "have to go" is not supported by policy. I support their point.
David Tornheim, in a community that is built on trust, I believe it is very important for us to openly acknowledge when we realize we made a mistake. I do my best to acknowledge whenI realize I was mistaken. I do my best to do so, even if my correspondent(s) have been unpleasant.
The wikipedia is a serious project, and I would like to be able to rely on my fellow wikipedia contributors to openly acknowledge when they realize they made a mistake. Even if you don't regard your efforts to comply with BEFORE as having fallen short, surely you realize your assertion that references "have to go" was a mistake? Would you please acknowledge that?
The note you left on Wikiproject History? Misleading. Your use of a piped link to Burano_(building)#McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom was apt to make it look like the article you nominated for deletion was McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom. Could you please fix that? Geo Swan ( talk) 11:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- For someone who has been here since 2004 and has 90,000+ edits, and edited 25,000 unique pages,
[2] I am baffled as to how you can be telling me liberal use of
WP:PRIMARY sources rather
WP:SECONDARY sources is totally fine, when that goes against the entire spirit of our
WP:RS policy. Aren't you familiar with
WP:OR? If you want to make a note at Wiki Project History clarifying that there is no such article
McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom and that hence it is not be subjection to deletion, but instead a non-notable high rise condo building is what is being discussed instead, be my guest. I thought I was pretty clear. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 13:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Meaningful discussion works best if we (1) respond to what our correspondents actually said, or (2) sometimes exercise good faith judgment, and tactfully respond to what we think they actually meant, while saying that is what we are doing. To be avoided is to respond to strawman arguments our correspondents didn't make, or to leap on a non-standard interpretation of their comment, that is easier to refute, when it is pretty clear they meant the mainline straight-forward meaning of their comment.
In this particular case I did not say PRIMARY sources are just as good as SECONDARY sources. Jack N Stock quoted you a passage about how PRIMARY sources should be used, that I agree was a good counter to your assertion that PRIMARY sources "have to go". PRIMARY sources supplement SECONDARY sources. That is what the wikidocument says, it is what Jack N Stock said, and what I said.
As to whether the Burano is a "non-notable high rise" -- weren't you already on the cusp of acknowledging that the Turnbull article established notability? Geo Swan ( talk) 23:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- I changed what I regarded as your misleading wording, as per your permission. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Meaningful discussion works best if we (1) respond to what our correspondents actually said, or (2) sometimes exercise good faith judgment, and tactfully respond to what we think they actually meant, while saying that is what we are doing. To be avoided is to respond to strawman arguments our correspondents didn't make, or to leap on a non-standard interpretation of their comment, that is easier to refute, when it is pretty clear they meant the mainline straight-forward meaning of their comment.
- For someone who has been here since 2004 and has 90,000+ edits, and edited 25,000 unique pages,
[2] I am baffled as to how you can be telling me liberal use of
WP:PRIMARY sources rather
WP:SECONDARY sources is totally fine, when that goes against the entire spirit of our
WP:RS policy. Aren't you familiar with
WP:OR? If you want to make a note at Wiki Project History clarifying that there is no such article
McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom and that hence it is not be subjection to deletion, but instead a non-notable high rise condo building is what is being discussed instead, be my guest. I thought I was pretty clear. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 13:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
-
David Tornheim -
here are the 338 page views for the three months preceding your nomination. That is about 100 page views per month. If I had written this article I would feel satisfied 100 people reading it, per month, was sufficient to show my time was well spent. I'd settle for 20 people per month.
- The "article" with the plaque is a self-published website, written by a librarian rather than a historian. I very much doubt that meets our
WP:RS requirements. See for example:
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RS_for_WWII_--_ww2today.com_.3F which is also self-published website by someone who is not a historian. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 06:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's not the plaque itself that is used as a source, but the article about the plaque. Again, this is not me visiting the building and taking a photo of the plaque (or perhaps artfully creating a picture of a non-existent plaque), but an independent source.
Jack N. Stock (
talk) 04:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I added some references about the Burano building, and I also found THIS or THIS or THIS about the location's former use as an early automobile dealership.— Anne Delong ( talk) 04:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the research. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 07:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comments: FYI,
- Based on the recent feedback about WP:RS, I went ahead and created McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom. The later portion of the text still needs work.
- Also, I just looked at this. When I saw the URL, I thought that was just a staff report or some other possibly transient paper at City Hall or Planning, but this looks to be more like a publication by the Planning Dept. for wide distribution. Because of that, but I think it is safe to call this document independent, secondary WP:RS. My search shows that in only mentions the building twice on pages 20 and 60. Based on that I am reconsidering changing my position. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 07:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Avoiding edit warring
As David Tornheim noted, above, he started McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom. He snipped considerable content, from Burano (building). But his edit summary does say he snipped it from Burano (building). Of course this means the Burano building article can't be deleted.
In this edit, prior to his content fork, I asked: "Well, when you came across the Turnbull reference, and other references that explained how the showroom was a notable heritage structure, during your compliance with BEFORE, why, in the name of Heck, didn't you start a talk page discussion where you suggested changing the article to be primarily focussed on the showroom, not the condo?"
Since DT hasn't really explicitly acknowledged this I am going to repeat a point I made above. His compliance with BEFORE fell short.
If he really thinks that there should be one article, one primarily about the showroom, not the highrise, I think that this should have been suggested, on Talk:Burano (building), instead of initiating an AFD. If he somehow missed the references that substantiated notability, but thought the article should be focussed on the showroom, not the highrise, wouldn't it have been appropriate to then withdraw the nomination, and suggested a name change, and focus change, on the talk page?
McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom, as currently written by DT, does not link to the Burano (building) article. Woah! Woah! Woah! Clearly these two articles are highly relevant to one another.
Currently both articles contain multiple key identical paragraphs.
There is a potential maintenance nightmare, when multiple articles contain identical instances of the same text. The instance in one article gets updated, while the instance(s) in other articles don't. So, we get dueling articles that offer dueling, inconstent material. That's bad.
This is not how we should cover closely related articles. The lion's share of coverage should go into the most closely related article. The other related articles should offer a brief description of what can be found at the article where the primary coverage is, followed by a wikilink to that article. And the coverage at that article should contain links to the other related articles. Not linking to relevant articles is a disservice to our readers.
The best way to prevent an edit-war is to not engage when you see another contributor editing in a way that is a potential trigger to an edit-war. If I were to edit the article DT created about the showroom; linked to the article on the highrise; added some appropriate content, about the highrise, that DT neglected to put in, am I risking being the second party to an edit-war?
The information about how the Burano developers had to disassemble the facade, brick by brick, numbered, warehoused, while new foundations were laid, and then reassembled, is extremely interesting.T copied that paragraph from the original article, into his fork, on the showroom. But this very rare disassembly took place AFTER the building was no longer a showroom. So, I think coverage of it belongs in the article on the highrise, not in the article on the showroom.
What if I snip the detailed coverage of the facade's disassembly from the article on the showroom, because I think it is already in the appropriate article, the article on the high-rise?
I am going to urge DT to stop editing either of these articles. Creation of a new article on the showroom was premature. Edits they make to the article on the highrise risk looking like attempts to subvert the AFD process. In return I won't edit the showroom article either. I will encourage anyone participating here, who isn't as involved as I am to add the missing links, and consider other fixes to the showroom article.
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 23:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. I already !voted Keep above. These developments make it clear the original topic is valid. IMO splitting the article at the same time as calling for the original to be deleted is invalid. Stealing material to undermine the original article is ridiculous. The article should be kept, probably at its original name, and should not be split unless or until it became too large by usual criteria for splitting (not yet met). After this AFD is closed (which should be by "Keep" decision), the article could possibly be moved to a different title by a
wp:RM process. In general, if there are duplicative articles, the newest one should be merged into the older one, even if the new title is to be adopted (by move over the newer one), saving the older edit history. --
do
ncr
am 01:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, I may have overstated things with my speaking of "Stealing material to undermine the original article". I confess I didn't actually check to see whether that seemed to have happened, and there's no proving what the intent was if material was moved from one to the other. I just got the impression that happened, but then David Tornheim speaks of false allegations below, which makes me worry. I'm sorry if I got it wrong in my characterization of intent here. But my recommendations stand, anyhow. -- do ncr am 13:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think merge to Burano (building) is appropriate, saving the original edit history, with a redirect from McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom. Later, some sort of discussion about whether to move the merged article. Resolve this AFD first, WP:MERGEPROP second, WP:RM third. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 01:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- After some thought, I'm posting the merger proposal on the two pages and the talk pages for the benefit of any editors who are unaware of this discussion. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 02:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Commment (with proposal): I was in the middle of responding to further false allegations against me, which frankly I getting tired of. However, rather than waste further time with that, let me propose this:
My Proposal: I will withdraw this WP:AfD, if all of you ( Geo Swan, Jacknstock and doncram) agree not to attempt to merge or move either of these two buildings ( Burano (building) and McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) into one article and you also agree not to submit McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom to WP:AfD. If that condition is met, I in turn will also promise not to initiate a merge, move or AfD on either article. Can we agree?
And also, that Jacknstock removes the merger proposal he just put up.
- I have put a lot of effort into making the new article a decent standalone article and I don't want my work wrecked by a merge, and I would like to save the record of the numerous edits I did made to the new article. I regret that I could not copy the Burano article history before I started, or I definitely would have, so that the edits Jacknstock made to the showroom would be visible. We had this exact same problem before in a parent/child article.
- As for duplicative info., I don't see much a problem there, I am more than happy to make sure the Motor Car Show Room stuff matches in both. The two buildings have a sliver of shared history, but they are clearly not the same building. I think it is more helpful to readers to have separate articles with separate infoboxes, for which all the information is different (even the locations are slightly different, since the highrise is set back, I have a hunch the the Burano has a different address scheme too for the various businesses it now houses.). Even though I find Burano only marginally notable, I am willing to make this compromise to save the McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom from being overshadowed even further by the high rise. I hope it will end all the unnecessary drama and save everyone who goes to AfD from having to read all of this...
- -- David Tornheim ( talk) 02:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree to the unusual proposal, though I bet it won't work because proposals like this don't, from my experience trying some previously. And let me suggest that the deal be understood to last for one year from the close of this AFD in terms of constraint on the other editors, though I myself agree to be bound forever by the deal. That would let the articles gel and for most parties simply to forget about this. Of course deals like this can't be binding on what other people do, besides those directly agreeing, so someone else could disagree with the deal now or later. And I happen to think that one article can suffice, based on current contents right now of the two articles. However perhaps both could be developed more separately. Overall I appreciate David Tornheim making the proposal, so I am willing to agree. I hope there will be no hard feelings if the others don't agree. And note they don't have to agree in order to "win" a "Keep" decision, as I sense this AFD is headed for Keep otherwise. If this deal is not accepted, then I may indeed participate in the merge discussion. -- do ncr am 02:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree not to initiate a merge, or initiate an AFD, on the showroom article. However, if a fourth person comes along, at some time in the future, and proposes a merge, I'd like to feel free to weigh in, at that point. Geo Swan ( talk) 10:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't like the deal. This isn't how or where merger discussions are resolved. One article with a redirect will provide a more complete understanding of the structure and its history, and it wouldn't be long or complicated. The merger discussion or a later WP:RM will determine which is the appropriate namespace, or there may be no merger, but that is a separate issue. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 12:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- That answers the proposal, it is not accepted by all parties (which is what I meant about proposals usually not working), so usual AFD rules still apply. At least everyone did consider it and answer, which doesn't always happen. See also my apology about intent, above in this diff.
- However, going forward, perhaps one concern expressed by David Tornheim can be addressed. Namely "I have put a lot of effort .... I would like to save the record of the numerous edits I did made to the new article." That can be done by an edit history merge, which an administrator can perform. Any merge proposal going forward should ask for a history merge. --
do
ncr
am 13:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. The history will still be on the redirect page, but we can ask for a history merge if there is a merger.
Jack N. Stock (
talk) 13:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- WRT the general utility of history merges... I know they can be very useful when one of the two articles was dormant for the entire time the newer article existed. But when both articles have been actively edited, at the same time, what will the revision history look like, after a history merge? Won't stepping through the merged history give a reader whiplash?
- Personally, I have no problem with having two related articles, provided they both link to one another. Except for the lack of a link to the highrise article, there is little I disagree with in the showroom article.
It turns out DT is a fine writer! That was a wonderful surprise!
If we keep two articles there is no need for a history merge.
- @ Geo Swan: Thank you so much for the kind words! I think we are getting closer to being on the same page. If you copy your support for separate articles at to the Talk:McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom#Merger_proposal merge proposal that will help out in getting me to withdraw this WP:AfD proposal.
- Regarding the lack of a link to
Burano_(building), it is actually there already. It is mentioned in the second paragraph, last sentence. It is also in the info. box under "opening". That sentence and the infobox entry need to be corrected as there was far more preservation than simply saving the facade, as discussed here:
Talk:McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom#Facadism. I did not include it in the
See also section, based on the
Manual of Style rule:
As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.
However, I do not object to adding there. (To be honest, I don't like that rule, and think it makes more sense to repeat some of the most important areas for further information even if they are in the WP:BODY) -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. The history will still be on the redirect page, but we can ask for a history merge if there is a merger.
Jack N. Stock (
talk) 13:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Doncram:,@ Geo Swan:, @ Jacknstock: Thanks to everyone for responding to my proposal. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Doncram:,@ Geo Swan: Thanks to both of you for supporting my proposal. I will make a revised proposal for both of you...that might be able to resolve this. I had hoped for all three, but two will probably be enough to make it work for me. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC) [revised 22:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) and 00:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)]
- new proposal:
I will withdraw this WP:AfD, if Geo Swan and doncram agree not to attempt to initiate or support a merge (including this proposed merge ( permalink)) of these two buildings ( Burano (building) and McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) into one article and you also agree not to submit McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom to WP:AfD, and Geo Swan mentions at Talk:McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom#Merger_proposal his support for two separate articles [3]. If these conditions are met, in addition to withdrawing this WP:AfD, I in turn will also promise not to initiate or support a merge or WP:AfD on either article, and I will further agree to support keeping both articles, if both exist and either is subject to deletion or merging. This agreement would not restrict any of the three of us from further opposing this proposed merge and this WP:AfD or opposing any future proposed merge or WP:AfD on either building. Can we agree?
- -- David Tornheim ( talk) 00:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I am open to revisions to this proposal related: (1) other new editors arriving (2) a time limit for how long we are required to comply. Feel free to make a counter proposal.
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 00:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry, this is getting too complicated. I'll offer simply that I will not initiate a merger proposal and I will not initiate any AFD, not as part of any deal, I just won't. This AFD is going to be closed "Keep" or "No consensus" because a) there are 3 "Keep" votes and only the nominator supposedly supports deletion, b) the nominator is proposing deals that involve keeping the article, i.e. they are not serious about insisting upon deletion, c) this is getting to be too much for anyone else to sort through. It seems straightforward to allow the AFD to be closed (which DT you could facilitate by simply withdrawing your nom without conditions), and then discuss merger. DT must have some great reasons why the two articles shouldn't be merged, else they wouldn't be going to these lengths. Express them in the merger discussion. Sorry, I made my original point in the AFD and would like to be done sometime soon! --
do
ncr
am 00:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's simple, the more expressed votes for merger and the fewer opposed, the greater the danger for them to be merged. I think any merge would seriously compromise the Showroom article. I think the showroom article should be primarily about the showroom--not the highrise. At this point, it is not clear what will happen with the merge or this
WP:AfD--new editors may arrive. If we agree, then both this AfD goes away and you won't have to worry about me initiating or supporting it again, even though I don't think Burano is notable and certainly not as notable as the showroom which is. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 00:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- The merger discussion (along with other discussion) increases views for both articles, and may attract improvements by other editors. As you strongly believe that the Showroom is notable, let it be tested. The test may make it stronger. Compare the Burano article now to when you started this AfD — it's bigger, better, and now there are two articles! This is one of the great strengths of collaboration. Let the collaborative processes take their course, it's all good.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
- I disagree. If the two articles are together the wikilink to the other will mean more views of the article people want to look at. If people are just interested in the historic building they shouldn't have to be forced to read about this run of the mill highrise. If they are interested in the high rise and don't about the historic structure, they will only be subjected to a summary of the connection between the two rather than everything interesting about the historic structure. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me. I was talking about the discussion being good for both articles. I wasn't making an argument for merger, but rather for discussion and collaboration.
Jack N. Stock (
talk) 03:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, okay, I agree that more eyes are good. Does that mean you think it would be a mistake to withdraw this AfD, since leaving it open means more eyes on this article? Also, does the move proposal give notice to other non-involved editors, like an
WP:AfD or an
WP:RfC? No one else has shown up who was not already aware of this AfD. I agree that more editors showing up is a good thing. I thought proposed moves and mergers give no special notice other than at the articles where the proposal is made. Leaving the AFD open will certainly invite more eyes, but I had the feeling many of you were hoping I would withdraw it. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 04:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Answers: Let the chips fall where they may, this AfD might even get relisted for another week and thus gain more attention. The move proposal was posted to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Toronto; be patient as move proposals are usually listed for at least a month, often longer. When I have time, I will also notify previous editors of Burano (building) (probably Wednesday evening). Jack N. Stock ( talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, okay, I agree that more eyes are good. Does that mean you think it would be a mistake to withdraw this AfD, since leaving it open means more eyes on this article? Also, does the move proposal give notice to other non-involved editors, like an
WP:AfD or an
WP:RfC? No one else has shown up who was not already aware of this AfD. I agree that more editors showing up is a good thing. I thought proposed moves and mergers give no special notice other than at the articles where the proposal is made. Leaving the AFD open will certainly invite more eyes, but I had the feeling many of you were hoping I would withdraw it. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 04:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me. I was talking about the discussion being good for both articles. I wasn't making an argument for merger, but rather for discussion and collaboration.
Jack N. Stock (
talk) 03:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. If the two articles are together the wikilink to the other will mean more views of the article people want to look at. If people are just interested in the historic building they shouldn't have to be forced to read about this run of the mill highrise. If they are interested in the high rise and don't about the historic structure, they will only be subjected to a summary of the connection between the two rather than everything interesting about the historic structure. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- The merger discussion (along with other discussion) increases views for both articles, and may attract improvements by other editors. As you strongly believe that the Showroom is notable, let it be tested. The test may make it stronger. Compare the Burano article now to when you started this AfD — it's bigger, better, and now there are two articles! This is one of the great strengths of collaboration. Let the collaborative processes take their course, it's all good.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
- It's simple, the more expressed votes for merger and the fewer opposed, the greater the danger for them to be merged. I think any merge would seriously compromise the Showroom article. I think the showroom article should be primarily about the showroom--not the highrise. At this point, it is not clear what will happen with the merge or this
WP:AfD--new editors may arrive. If we agree, then both this AfD goes away and you won't have to worry about me initiating or supporting it again, even though I don't think Burano is notable and certainly not as notable as the showroom which is. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 00:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry, this is getting too complicated. I'll offer simply that I will not initiate a merger proposal and I will not initiate any AFD, not as part of any deal, I just won't. This AFD is going to be closed "Keep" or "No consensus" because a) there are 3 "Keep" votes and only the nominator supposedly supports deletion, b) the nominator is proposing deals that involve keeping the article, i.e. they are not serious about insisting upon deletion, c) this is getting to be too much for anyone else to sort through. It seems straightforward to allow the AFD to be closed (which DT you could facilitate by simply withdrawing your nom without conditions), and then discuss merger. DT must have some great reasons why the two articles shouldn't be merged, else they wouldn't be going to these lengths. Express them in the merger discussion. Sorry, I made my original point in the AFD and would like to be done sometime soon! --
do
ncr
am 00:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
^Keep both I have expanded and added references to both articles.— Anne Delong ( talk) 03:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Wonderful. Thank you. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 03:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your vote to keep both. If you could express that at the merger proposal, it will move me in the direction of withdrawing this AfD. I'm still waiting to hear back from Geo Swan. If GeoSwan and you oppose the merger, then I can W/D this AfD, given the additional assurance from doncram above. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- AfD is not a negotiation. The discussion is underway, and will be closed when a consensus develops.— Anne Delong ( talk) 18:44, 16 May 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.
- 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) f e minist 03:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Burano (building)
- Burano (building) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. I researched here: Talk:Burano_(building)#research_for_notability -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Like i just wrote at similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casa Condominio Residenza, content (48 stories, 149 meters tall?) in article suffices to establish it is a major thing, and in my opinion it is useful for many readers to have coverage over such a thing which affects so many lives. It's like this is a geographic feature, i don't care that it is man-made. This is just shorter than the current threshold to be included as an item in the List of tallest buildings in Toronto article, i guess, otherwise redirecting to a row in the list-article could be an alternative to deletion. So just keep. -- do ncr am 02:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- As, I wrote at the other article where you made the same claim: Please show me any standard for notability that has to do with size. How can you claim "it affects so many lives"? Do you have WP:RS for that? Why would it need to be in a list article if it is not notable? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC) -- do ncr am 04:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Major buildings such as this one are often notable. Firstly, it has the equivalent population of a small town — in itself, it is a named, significantly populated place. Secondly, a quick online search finds plenty of news stories that at least mention this building. Thirdly, I found that the first two storeys of the building have been designated as a heritage building under the Ontario Heritage Act, a notable and very unusual feature in a modern residential skyscraper. There has simply been a lack of effort in establishing notability in the article. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 12:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Jacknstock: Please add the WP:RS that you found and mention the specific articles here. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator
David Tornheim says he tried his best to comply with
WP:BEFORE, prior to making the nomination. Sorry, I am going to agree with the other contributors, above, that nominator's efforts fell short.
Heritage buildings, where their heritage designation is documented, are generally likely to be notable, and the Burano is an example of facadism because the developers incorporated the facade of the 1925 building.
I can't imagine why nominator withheld this information from casual observers of this AFD.I added a couple of the references. Geo Swan ( talk) 23:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
-
Geo Swan I appreciate your effort to find new
WP:RS. If it is good, I will withdraw the nomination. Perhaps, you know the sources better than I. However, please strike your claim that "I can't imagine why nominator withheld this information from casual observers of this AFD."
WP:AGF and focus on content not editors. If you don't strike the claim I will add a warning to your talk page about "casting aspersions". --
David Tornheim (
talk) 01:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see a withdrawal of the nomination. Was it good? Jack N. Stock ( talk) 05:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
-
Geo Swan I appreciate your effort to find new
WP:RS. If it is good, I will withdraw the nomination. Perhaps, you know the sources better than I. However, please strike your claim that "I can't imagine why nominator withheld this information from casual observers of this AFD."
WP:AGF and focus on content not editors. If you don't strike the claim I will add a warning to your talk page about "casting aspersions". --
David Tornheim (
talk) 01:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I made this relevant post about the claimed
WP:RS for more eyes on this subject:
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Urbantoronto.ca --
David Tornheim (
talk) 01:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- There's quite a lot of reliable information once I started digging, partly because of the heritage building at the base. The builders dismantled the historic facade and meticulously reconstructed it above a seven-floor underground parking lot. As for the article itself, we've gone from two sources to thirteen (just about to add the thirteenth), while increasing both accuracy and detail, with all facts verified. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 02:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate your doing more research. This article about the issue of the dealership might might be considered toward notability. That don't sound as much like an advertisement as this article also from the same source ( thestar.com) regarding the other building we have been discussing. However, it might be that McLaughlin_(automobile) motor car showroom is what is notable rather than the building in its former lot.
- A number of the references you are adding are
WP:PRIMARY sources, such as the document of the Toronto Design Guidelines from the Planning Dept
[1],
The Heritage impact statement,
similar doc and
developer's website. Probably all of that will have to go. I will post this on the article talk page too. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 04:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- The architect that wrote the Heritage Impact Statement (E.R.A. Architects Inc.) was a third party, not the architect for the building. This is WP:INDEPENDENT rather than a WP:PRIMARY, as independent, third party opinion was required to satisfy the heritage conservation laws. Also, primary sources are allowed in WP, provided the editor is not providing interpretation: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I have not added any interpretation or synthesis (i.e., WP:OR) in the article, only rephrasing to avoid copyright violation. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 04:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Regarding the potential notability and historical significance of the showroom, I made this post on WikiProject History:
- --
David Tornheim (
talk) 04:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's not the plaque itself that is used as a source, but the article about the plaque. Again, this is not me visiting the building and taking a photo of the plaque (or perhaps artfully creating a picture of a non-existent plaque), but an independent source.
Jack N. Stock (
talk) 04:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- The "article" with the plaque is a self-published website, written by a librarian rather than a historian. I very much doubt that meets our
WP:RS requirements. See for example:
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RS_for_WWII_--_ww2today.com_.3F which is also self-published website by someone who is not a historian. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 06:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
-
David Tornheim -
here are the 338 page views for the three months preceding your nomination. That is about 100 page views per month. If I had written this article I would feel satisfied 100 people reading it, per month, was sufficient to show my time was well spent. I'd settle for 20 people per month.
You've made some minor challenges, as to whether some of the references are PRIMARY sources. You suggested that the PRIMARY references "will have to go". Jack N Stock pointed out that your suggestion that PRIMARY references "have to go" is not supported by policy. I support their point.
David Tornheim, in a community that is built on trust, I believe it is very important for us to openly acknowledge when we realize we made a mistake. I do my best to acknowledge whenI realize I was mistaken. I do my best to do so, even if my correspondent(s) have been unpleasant.
The wikipedia is a serious project, and I would like to be able to rely on my fellow wikipedia contributors to openly acknowledge when they realize they made a mistake. Even if you don't regard your efforts to comply with BEFORE as having fallen short, surely you realize your assertion that references "have to go" was a mistake? Would you please acknowledge that?
The note you left on Wikiproject History? Misleading. Your use of a piped link to Burano_(building)#McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom was apt to make it look like the article you nominated for deletion was McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom. Could you please fix that? Geo Swan ( talk) 11:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- For someone who has been here since 2004 and has 90,000+ edits, and edited 25,000 unique pages,
[2] I am baffled as to how you can be telling me liberal use of
WP:PRIMARY sources rather
WP:SECONDARY sources is totally fine, when that goes against the entire spirit of our
WP:RS policy. Aren't you familiar with
WP:OR? If you want to make a note at Wiki Project History clarifying that there is no such article
McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom and that hence it is not be subjection to deletion, but instead a non-notable high rise condo building is what is being discussed instead, be my guest. I thought I was pretty clear. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 13:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Meaningful discussion works best if we (1) respond to what our correspondents actually said, or (2) sometimes exercise good faith judgment, and tactfully respond to what we think they actually meant, while saying that is what we are doing. To be avoided is to respond to strawman arguments our correspondents didn't make, or to leap on a non-standard interpretation of their comment, that is easier to refute, when it is pretty clear they meant the mainline straight-forward meaning of their comment.
In this particular case I did not say PRIMARY sources are just as good as SECONDARY sources. Jack N Stock quoted you a passage about how PRIMARY sources should be used, that I agree was a good counter to your assertion that PRIMARY sources "have to go". PRIMARY sources supplement SECONDARY sources. That is what the wikidocument says, it is what Jack N Stock said, and what I said.
As to whether the Burano is a "non-notable high rise" -- weren't you already on the cusp of acknowledging that the Turnbull article established notability? Geo Swan ( talk) 23:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- I changed what I regarded as your misleading wording, as per your permission. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Meaningful discussion works best if we (1) respond to what our correspondents actually said, or (2) sometimes exercise good faith judgment, and tactfully respond to what we think they actually meant, while saying that is what we are doing. To be avoided is to respond to strawman arguments our correspondents didn't make, or to leap on a non-standard interpretation of their comment, that is easier to refute, when it is pretty clear they meant the mainline straight-forward meaning of their comment.
- For someone who has been here since 2004 and has 90,000+ edits, and edited 25,000 unique pages,
[2] I am baffled as to how you can be telling me liberal use of
WP:PRIMARY sources rather
WP:SECONDARY sources is totally fine, when that goes against the entire spirit of our
WP:RS policy. Aren't you familiar with
WP:OR? If you want to make a note at Wiki Project History clarifying that there is no such article
McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom and that hence it is not be subjection to deletion, but instead a non-notable high rise condo building is what is being discussed instead, be my guest. I thought I was pretty clear. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 13:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
-
David Tornheim -
here are the 338 page views for the three months preceding your nomination. That is about 100 page views per month. If I had written this article I would feel satisfied 100 people reading it, per month, was sufficient to show my time was well spent. I'd settle for 20 people per month.
- The "article" with the plaque is a self-published website, written by a librarian rather than a historian. I very much doubt that meets our
WP:RS requirements. See for example:
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RS_for_WWII_--_ww2today.com_.3F which is also self-published website by someone who is not a historian. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 06:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's not the plaque itself that is used as a source, but the article about the plaque. Again, this is not me visiting the building and taking a photo of the plaque (or perhaps artfully creating a picture of a non-existent plaque), but an independent source.
Jack N. Stock (
talk) 04:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I added some references about the Burano building, and I also found THIS or THIS or THIS about the location's former use as an early automobile dealership.— Anne Delong ( talk) 04:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the research. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 07:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comments: FYI,
- Based on the recent feedback about WP:RS, I went ahead and created McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom. The later portion of the text still needs work.
- Also, I just looked at this. When I saw the URL, I thought that was just a staff report or some other possibly transient paper at City Hall or Planning, but this looks to be more like a publication by the Planning Dept. for wide distribution. Because of that, but I think it is safe to call this document independent, secondary WP:RS. My search shows that in only mentions the building twice on pages 20 and 60. Based on that I am reconsidering changing my position. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 07:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Avoiding edit warring
As David Tornheim noted, above, he started McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom. He snipped considerable content, from Burano (building). But his edit summary does say he snipped it from Burano (building). Of course this means the Burano building article can't be deleted.
In this edit, prior to his content fork, I asked: "Well, when you came across the Turnbull reference, and other references that explained how the showroom was a notable heritage structure, during your compliance with BEFORE, why, in the name of Heck, didn't you start a talk page discussion where you suggested changing the article to be primarily focussed on the showroom, not the condo?"
Since DT hasn't really explicitly acknowledged this I am going to repeat a point I made above. His compliance with BEFORE fell short.
If he really thinks that there should be one article, one primarily about the showroom, not the highrise, I think that this should have been suggested, on Talk:Burano (building), instead of initiating an AFD. If he somehow missed the references that substantiated notability, but thought the article should be focussed on the showroom, not the highrise, wouldn't it have been appropriate to then withdraw the nomination, and suggested a name change, and focus change, on the talk page?
McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom, as currently written by DT, does not link to the Burano (building) article. Woah! Woah! Woah! Clearly these two articles are highly relevant to one another.
Currently both articles contain multiple key identical paragraphs.
There is a potential maintenance nightmare, when multiple articles contain identical instances of the same text. The instance in one article gets updated, while the instance(s) in other articles don't. So, we get dueling articles that offer dueling, inconstent material. That's bad.
This is not how we should cover closely related articles. The lion's share of coverage should go into the most closely related article. The other related articles should offer a brief description of what can be found at the article where the primary coverage is, followed by a wikilink to that article. And the coverage at that article should contain links to the other related articles. Not linking to relevant articles is a disservice to our readers.
The best way to prevent an edit-war is to not engage when you see another contributor editing in a way that is a potential trigger to an edit-war. If I were to edit the article DT created about the showroom; linked to the article on the highrise; added some appropriate content, about the highrise, that DT neglected to put in, am I risking being the second party to an edit-war?
The information about how the Burano developers had to disassemble the facade, brick by brick, numbered, warehoused, while new foundations were laid, and then reassembled, is extremely interesting.T copied that paragraph from the original article, into his fork, on the showroom. But this very rare disassembly took place AFTER the building was no longer a showroom. So, I think coverage of it belongs in the article on the highrise, not in the article on the showroom.
What if I snip the detailed coverage of the facade's disassembly from the article on the showroom, because I think it is already in the appropriate article, the article on the high-rise?
I am going to urge DT to stop editing either of these articles. Creation of a new article on the showroom was premature. Edits they make to the article on the highrise risk looking like attempts to subvert the AFD process. In return I won't edit the showroom article either. I will encourage anyone participating here, who isn't as involved as I am to add the missing links, and consider other fixes to the showroom article.
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 23:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. I already !voted Keep above. These developments make it clear the original topic is valid. IMO splitting the article at the same time as calling for the original to be deleted is invalid. Stealing material to undermine the original article is ridiculous. The article should be kept, probably at its original name, and should not be split unless or until it became too large by usual criteria for splitting (not yet met). After this AFD is closed (which should be by "Keep" decision), the article could possibly be moved to a different title by a
wp:RM process. In general, if there are duplicative articles, the newest one should be merged into the older one, even if the new title is to be adopted (by move over the newer one), saving the older edit history. --
do
ncr
am 01:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, I may have overstated things with my speaking of "Stealing material to undermine the original article". I confess I didn't actually check to see whether that seemed to have happened, and there's no proving what the intent was if material was moved from one to the other. I just got the impression that happened, but then David Tornheim speaks of false allegations below, which makes me worry. I'm sorry if I got it wrong in my characterization of intent here. But my recommendations stand, anyhow. -- do ncr am 13:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think merge to Burano (building) is appropriate, saving the original edit history, with a redirect from McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom. Later, some sort of discussion about whether to move the merged article. Resolve this AFD first, WP:MERGEPROP second, WP:RM third. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 01:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- After some thought, I'm posting the merger proposal on the two pages and the talk pages for the benefit of any editors who are unaware of this discussion. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 02:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Commment (with proposal): I was in the middle of responding to further false allegations against me, which frankly I getting tired of. However, rather than waste further time with that, let me propose this:
My Proposal: I will withdraw this WP:AfD, if all of you ( Geo Swan, Jacknstock and doncram) agree not to attempt to merge or move either of these two buildings ( Burano (building) and McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) into one article and you also agree not to submit McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom to WP:AfD. If that condition is met, I in turn will also promise not to initiate a merge, move or AfD on either article. Can we agree?
And also, that Jacknstock removes the merger proposal he just put up.
- I have put a lot of effort into making the new article a decent standalone article and I don't want my work wrecked by a merge, and I would like to save the record of the numerous edits I did made to the new article. I regret that I could not copy the Burano article history before I started, or I definitely would have, so that the edits Jacknstock made to the showroom would be visible. We had this exact same problem before in a parent/child article.
- As for duplicative info., I don't see much a problem there, I am more than happy to make sure the Motor Car Show Room stuff matches in both. The two buildings have a sliver of shared history, but they are clearly not the same building. I think it is more helpful to readers to have separate articles with separate infoboxes, for which all the information is different (even the locations are slightly different, since the highrise is set back, I have a hunch the the Burano has a different address scheme too for the various businesses it now houses.). Even though I find Burano only marginally notable, I am willing to make this compromise to save the McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom from being overshadowed even further by the high rise. I hope it will end all the unnecessary drama and save everyone who goes to AfD from having to read all of this...
- -- David Tornheim ( talk) 02:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree to the unusual proposal, though I bet it won't work because proposals like this don't, from my experience trying some previously. And let me suggest that the deal be understood to last for one year from the close of this AFD in terms of constraint on the other editors, though I myself agree to be bound forever by the deal. That would let the articles gel and for most parties simply to forget about this. Of course deals like this can't be binding on what other people do, besides those directly agreeing, so someone else could disagree with the deal now or later. And I happen to think that one article can suffice, based on current contents right now of the two articles. However perhaps both could be developed more separately. Overall I appreciate David Tornheim making the proposal, so I am willing to agree. I hope there will be no hard feelings if the others don't agree. And note they don't have to agree in order to "win" a "Keep" decision, as I sense this AFD is headed for Keep otherwise. If this deal is not accepted, then I may indeed participate in the merge discussion. -- do ncr am 02:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree not to initiate a merge, or initiate an AFD, on the showroom article. However, if a fourth person comes along, at some time in the future, and proposes a merge, I'd like to feel free to weigh in, at that point. Geo Swan ( talk) 10:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't like the deal. This isn't how or where merger discussions are resolved. One article with a redirect will provide a more complete understanding of the structure and its history, and it wouldn't be long or complicated. The merger discussion or a later WP:RM will determine which is the appropriate namespace, or there may be no merger, but that is a separate issue. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 12:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- That answers the proposal, it is not accepted by all parties (which is what I meant about proposals usually not working), so usual AFD rules still apply. At least everyone did consider it and answer, which doesn't always happen. See also my apology about intent, above in this diff.
- However, going forward, perhaps one concern expressed by David Tornheim can be addressed. Namely "I have put a lot of effort .... I would like to save the record of the numerous edits I did made to the new article." That can be done by an edit history merge, which an administrator can perform. Any merge proposal going forward should ask for a history merge. --
do
ncr
am 13:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. The history will still be on the redirect page, but we can ask for a history merge if there is a merger.
Jack N. Stock (
talk) 13:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- WRT the general utility of history merges... I know they can be very useful when one of the two articles was dormant for the entire time the newer article existed. But when both articles have been actively edited, at the same time, what will the revision history look like, after a history merge? Won't stepping through the merged history give a reader whiplash?
- Personally, I have no problem with having two related articles, provided they both link to one another. Except for the lack of a link to the highrise article, there is little I disagree with in the showroom article.
It turns out DT is a fine writer! That was a wonderful surprise!
If we keep two articles there is no need for a history merge.
- @ Geo Swan: Thank you so much for the kind words! I think we are getting closer to being on the same page. If you copy your support for separate articles at to the Talk:McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom#Merger_proposal merge proposal that will help out in getting me to withdraw this WP:AfD proposal.
- Regarding the lack of a link to
Burano_(building), it is actually there already. It is mentioned in the second paragraph, last sentence. It is also in the info. box under "opening". That sentence and the infobox entry need to be corrected as there was far more preservation than simply saving the facade, as discussed here:
Talk:McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom#Facadism. I did not include it in the
See also section, based on the
Manual of Style rule:
As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.
However, I do not object to adding there. (To be honest, I don't like that rule, and think it makes more sense to repeat some of the most important areas for further information even if they are in the WP:BODY) -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. The history will still be on the redirect page, but we can ask for a history merge if there is a merger.
Jack N. Stock (
talk) 13:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Doncram:,@ Geo Swan:, @ Jacknstock: Thanks to everyone for responding to my proposal. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Doncram:,@ Geo Swan: Thanks to both of you for supporting my proposal. I will make a revised proposal for both of you...that might be able to resolve this. I had hoped for all three, but two will probably be enough to make it work for me. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC) [revised 22:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) and 00:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)]
- new proposal:
I will withdraw this WP:AfD, if Geo Swan and doncram agree not to attempt to initiate or support a merge (including this proposed merge ( permalink)) of these two buildings ( Burano (building) and McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) into one article and you also agree not to submit McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom to WP:AfD, and Geo Swan mentions at Talk:McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom#Merger_proposal his support for two separate articles [3]. If these conditions are met, in addition to withdrawing this WP:AfD, I in turn will also promise not to initiate or support a merge or WP:AfD on either article, and I will further agree to support keeping both articles, if both exist and either is subject to deletion or merging. This agreement would not restrict any of the three of us from further opposing this proposed merge and this WP:AfD or opposing any future proposed merge or WP:AfD on either building. Can we agree?
- -- David Tornheim ( talk) 00:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I am open to revisions to this proposal related: (1) other new editors arriving (2) a time limit for how long we are required to comply. Feel free to make a counter proposal.
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 00:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry, this is getting too complicated. I'll offer simply that I will not initiate a merger proposal and I will not initiate any AFD, not as part of any deal, I just won't. This AFD is going to be closed "Keep" or "No consensus" because a) there are 3 "Keep" votes and only the nominator supposedly supports deletion, b) the nominator is proposing deals that involve keeping the article, i.e. they are not serious about insisting upon deletion, c) this is getting to be too much for anyone else to sort through. It seems straightforward to allow the AFD to be closed (which DT you could facilitate by simply withdrawing your nom without conditions), and then discuss merger. DT must have some great reasons why the two articles shouldn't be merged, else they wouldn't be going to these lengths. Express them in the merger discussion. Sorry, I made my original point in the AFD and would like to be done sometime soon! --
do
ncr
am 00:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's simple, the more expressed votes for merger and the fewer opposed, the greater the danger for them to be merged. I think any merge would seriously compromise the Showroom article. I think the showroom article should be primarily about the showroom--not the highrise. At this point, it is not clear what will happen with the merge or this
WP:AfD--new editors may arrive. If we agree, then both this AfD goes away and you won't have to worry about me initiating or supporting it again, even though I don't think Burano is notable and certainly not as notable as the showroom which is. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 00:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- The merger discussion (along with other discussion) increases views for both articles, and may attract improvements by other editors. As you strongly believe that the Showroom is notable, let it be tested. The test may make it stronger. Compare the Burano article now to when you started this AfD — it's bigger, better, and now there are two articles! This is one of the great strengths of collaboration. Let the collaborative processes take their course, it's all good.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
- I disagree. If the two articles are together the wikilink to the other will mean more views of the article people want to look at. If people are just interested in the historic building they shouldn't have to be forced to read about this run of the mill highrise. If they are interested in the high rise and don't about the historic structure, they will only be subjected to a summary of the connection between the two rather than everything interesting about the historic structure. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me. I was talking about the discussion being good for both articles. I wasn't making an argument for merger, but rather for discussion and collaboration.
Jack N. Stock (
talk) 03:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, okay, I agree that more eyes are good. Does that mean you think it would be a mistake to withdraw this AfD, since leaving it open means more eyes on this article? Also, does the move proposal give notice to other non-involved editors, like an
WP:AfD or an
WP:RfC? No one else has shown up who was not already aware of this AfD. I agree that more editors showing up is a good thing. I thought proposed moves and mergers give no special notice other than at the articles where the proposal is made. Leaving the AFD open will certainly invite more eyes, but I had the feeling many of you were hoping I would withdraw it. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 04:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Answers: Let the chips fall where they may, this AfD might even get relisted for another week and thus gain more attention. The move proposal was posted to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Toronto; be patient as move proposals are usually listed for at least a month, often longer. When I have time, I will also notify previous editors of Burano (building) (probably Wednesday evening). Jack N. Stock ( talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, okay, I agree that more eyes are good. Does that mean you think it would be a mistake to withdraw this AfD, since leaving it open means more eyes on this article? Also, does the move proposal give notice to other non-involved editors, like an
WP:AfD or an
WP:RfC? No one else has shown up who was not already aware of this AfD. I agree that more editors showing up is a good thing. I thought proposed moves and mergers give no special notice other than at the articles where the proposal is made. Leaving the AFD open will certainly invite more eyes, but I had the feeling many of you were hoping I would withdraw it. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 04:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me. I was talking about the discussion being good for both articles. I wasn't making an argument for merger, but rather for discussion and collaboration.
Jack N. Stock (
talk) 03:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. If the two articles are together the wikilink to the other will mean more views of the article people want to look at. If people are just interested in the historic building they shouldn't have to be forced to read about this run of the mill highrise. If they are interested in the high rise and don't about the historic structure, they will only be subjected to a summary of the connection between the two rather than everything interesting about the historic structure. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- The merger discussion (along with other discussion) increases views for both articles, and may attract improvements by other editors. As you strongly believe that the Showroom is notable, let it be tested. The test may make it stronger. Compare the Burano article now to when you started this AfD — it's bigger, better, and now there are two articles! This is one of the great strengths of collaboration. Let the collaborative processes take their course, it's all good.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
- It's simple, the more expressed votes for merger and the fewer opposed, the greater the danger for them to be merged. I think any merge would seriously compromise the Showroom article. I think the showroom article should be primarily about the showroom--not the highrise. At this point, it is not clear what will happen with the merge or this
WP:AfD--new editors may arrive. If we agree, then both this AfD goes away and you won't have to worry about me initiating or supporting it again, even though I don't think Burano is notable and certainly not as notable as the showroom which is. --
David Tornheim (
talk) 00:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry, this is getting too complicated. I'll offer simply that I will not initiate a merger proposal and I will not initiate any AFD, not as part of any deal, I just won't. This AFD is going to be closed "Keep" or "No consensus" because a) there are 3 "Keep" votes and only the nominator supposedly supports deletion, b) the nominator is proposing deals that involve keeping the article, i.e. they are not serious about insisting upon deletion, c) this is getting to be too much for anyone else to sort through. It seems straightforward to allow the AFD to be closed (which DT you could facilitate by simply withdrawing your nom without conditions), and then discuss merger. DT must have some great reasons why the two articles shouldn't be merged, else they wouldn't be going to these lengths. Express them in the merger discussion. Sorry, I made my original point in the AFD and would like to be done sometime soon! --
do
ncr
am 00:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
^Keep both I have expanded and added references to both articles.— Anne Delong ( talk) 03:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Wonderful. Thank you. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 03:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your vote to keep both. If you could express that at the merger proposal, it will move me in the direction of withdrawing this AfD. I'm still waiting to hear back from Geo Swan. If GeoSwan and you oppose the merger, then I can W/D this AfD, given the additional assurance from doncram above. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- AfD is not a negotiation. The discussion is underway, and will be closed when a consensus develops.— Anne Delong ( talk) 18:44, 16 May 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.