- 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. Secret account 19:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Uptown Markham, Ontario
- Uptown Markham, Ontario ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced and fails general notability. PROD was removed more than 2 years and article was instead tagged for notability. There have been no significant changes and the article is still unreferenced more than two years later. Project seems to have long term plans, but for now seems to be little but a shopping/commercial centre with no claim to notability. Meters ( talk) 20:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator is correct that the article, as written, does not make or source any particular notability for what is, when you get right down to it, just a mixed use commercial/condo-residential development of no more inherent notability than any generic residential subdivision or any generic shopping mall. This type of thing might be considered notable if you could source it well enough to get it over WP:GNG, but is not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just because it exists. No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can write and source it properly, but this version is a definite delete. Bearcat ( talk) 23:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 01:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 08:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- I tried going for a keep because it is a huge development, the funds are there, and it's actually under construction. But I just can't find anything to satisfy WP:GNG other than two newspaper articles from 2011 saying that this neighbourhood is going to be built. All other google hits are mainly real estate agent adverts and such. Delete.
- The article Downtown Markham has similar problems even though the neighbourhood is much further in its completion. There is no significant coverage to warrant their article here on WP. - Takeaway ( talk) 00:37, 10 October 2014 (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 delete. Secret account 19:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Uptown Markham, Ontario
- Uptown Markham, Ontario ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced and fails general notability. PROD was removed more than 2 years and article was instead tagged for notability. There have been no significant changes and the article is still unreferenced more than two years later. Project seems to have long term plans, but for now seems to be little but a shopping/commercial centre with no claim to notability. Meters ( talk) 20:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator is correct that the article, as written, does not make or source any particular notability for what is, when you get right down to it, just a mixed use commercial/condo-residential development of no more inherent notability than any generic residential subdivision or any generic shopping mall. This type of thing might be considered notable if you could source it well enough to get it over WP:GNG, but is not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just because it exists. No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can write and source it properly, but this version is a definite delete. Bearcat ( talk) 23:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 01:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 08:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- I tried going for a keep because it is a huge development, the funds are there, and it's actually under construction. But I just can't find anything to satisfy WP:GNG other than two newspaper articles from 2011 saying that this neighbourhood is going to be built. All other google hits are mainly real estate agent adverts and such. Delete.
- The article Downtown Markham has similar problems even though the neighbourhood is much further in its completion. There is no significant coverage to warrant their article here on WP. - Takeaway ( talk) 00:37, 10 October 2014 (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.