Talk:Old City Hall (Toronto)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

Old City Hall was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

Should be merged with Toronto. Or, if it can be expanded, renamed so as not to be so ambiguous. -- Scott Burley 06:49, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Fuzheado | Talk 06:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Well, we have articles about other buildings in Toronto, and this one is very well-known and recognizable. Obviously it has a bad title at the moment and does not really say much, but it could be expanded. (If I had a camera, and the building was not covered in scaffolding, I would take a picture.) Adam Bishop 07:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Has potential to become encyclopedic. Does need new title. Suggest "Old City Hall (Toronto)" Fg2 07:23, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
• With the present content, merge to Toronto City Hall, but don't redirect from the present title. If this article were to be expanded a *lot*, then it surely would be worth keeping at the name Fg2 suggested. ~leif ☺ _HELO 08:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Move (don't redirect). I'm sure there are a fair number of buildings called Old City Hall worldwide. Average Earthman 10:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and delete is not valid. I would say that a move is a good idea, except that there's nothing here. Again, it would take anyone else no time to overcome this content, and I don't know why we need to credit the person who thought of writing on the subject but didn't bother to do it. That's why I'd have to say delete, but I suggest Torontoans write something on the building in the Toronto, Canada article and create a redirect at Old City Hall (Toronto). Geogre 14:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Why isn't "merge and delete" valid? For a freshly-created article with a small number of edits by a single contributor, why can't the text be merged into another article and a manually-created summary of the history placed on the Talk page? That's method 1. Method 2, well, Improv says there's a way to merge histories but didn't say how... and after experimenting a bit with various sequences of deletes and merges and restores I think he's probably right but I don't quite have the technique down yet.
    • Well, masked man who didn't sign, it is legal, if you do all that. :-) The reason I said that it wasn't a legal vote is that I gather that the back end of VfD, if you'll forgive the imagery, has folks doing the things that have been requested -- the deleting, the merging, the redirecting -- and forcing them to hand paste the histories in is something that VfD voters aren't supposed to require. That said, as I've indicated elsewhere, I would personally love to see "merge and delete" a possibility, but I think it's a GFDL thing, and not a logic thing. Geogre 05:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The correct term is Torontonian, if the article is to be moved, it should be Toronto Old City Hall 132.205.45.110 16:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and delete or merge and redirect to Toronto. Should not be a separate article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into Toronto City Hall, just as is done for other building names that apply to more than one building. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 19:43, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep a famous and historic Toronto building. More notable than some of the other structures in Category:Toronto buildings or Category:City halls. - SimonP 20:47, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Have formated and expanded the article. - SimonP 05:24, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Previous article title was the only dodgy feature. It should not be listed here. zoney ♣ talk 21:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Article has been moved to a more appropriate title; building is encyclopedia-notable. Keep as revised. Bearcat 22:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic, relevant, factually accurate, verifiable. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 00:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Article-worthy as it is, and I know that there's room for much more on the subject (pending research). Radagast 13:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a notable building. New title is an improvement. John FitzGerald
• Keep. It's a good start to an article. --YUL89YYZ 14:14, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. With new title, quite valid. It's a stub, but it's a building worth an article, and this is a good start. - Cafemusique 17:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)