Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montreal-Ottawa Corridor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Montreal-Ottawa Corridor
The corridor does not seem to exist as a geographical entity. Statscan does not refer to it at all, and a google search seems to only turn up pages that can be linked back to this page, or that are refering specifically to the geographical area, not an urban area, or a political bloc. Often these pages are referring to the Quebec City-Montreal-Ottawa, or Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto. The original author has been given considerable opportunity to provide a source, and has neglected to from this point. Considering the fact that there seems to be absolutely no source that supports the concept or an urban corridor encompassing Montreal and Ottawa, and considering the fact that Statistics Canada excluded Ottawa from the Greater Montreal Area census region, it seems that the evidence would support deletion of this article. Jamincan 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Closest thing I can think of is the "Windsor-Quebec City corridor", and that's a phrase used in the context of transportation. -Joshuapaquin 01:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I have never heard of this as an entity, and it seems to be pretty hypothetical. - SimonP 01:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I live in it, and it's not a commonly used concept. There is certainly, at present, no contiguous corridor of urbanization connecting the two cities, as a drive along Highway 417 would make clear to anyone. - Eron Talk 13:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Original research. DrKiernan 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - article disavows itself with the Statistics Canada reference. Thirty years ago, it might have been discussed, but not now. B.Wind 02:35, 7 December 2006 (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.
