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. Consensus for keep as GNG met clearly, especially with the addition of new sources establishing notability. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Cotta, Ontario[edit]

Terra Cotta, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfield West, Ontario, the same editor again created a poorly sourced article about a submunicipal neighbourhood within the town of Caledon, again at the improper and absolutely unacceptable title "Terra Cotta, Ontario, Canada" in order to bypass the fact that the correct title already existed as a redirect to Caledon.
The fundamental issue here remains identical, however: per WP:GEOLAND, unincorporated communities within incorporated municipalities are not automatically notable enough for their own standalone articles as distinct topics from their municipality -- they get to have their own separate articles only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on the quality of their sourcing, and get redirected to the municipality if they can't. But again, this is based entirely on primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, with not a whit of GNG-worthy coverage in proper reliable sources shown at all, which is not how you make a submunicipal neighbourhood notable enough for its own article. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this is clearly notable under GEOLAND - it's been recognised as a regional rural settlement area, it's used as a modern postmark for addresses, parliament read at least one letter from someone claiming they were from there, and there's lots of mentions of it in books. Also unlike Mayfield West it doesn't really look like a sub-municipal neighbourhood but more like a rural community a few kilometers from the Brampton built up area. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've managed to use the biggest detractor to this being kept, "regional rural settlement", as justification to vote keep. That phrase means it's rural area, not a populated place. James.folsom (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You remember the names of any of those books, Also how many of them are about terra cotta building material? James.folsom (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The regional rural settlement shows legal definition. Also it's one exceptionally simple search - "Terra Cotta, Ontario" in Google Books brings up lots of at least mentions. I really do not like the insinuation that I just did a simple search for terra cotta building material, that's disrespectful. [1] [2] [3] SportingFlyer T·C 23:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry man, I did not mean that the way you took it. Try to remember I'm neuro-divergent. I was merely trying to commiserate on the subject of what a F'ing pain that name is. As to the books, I saw all of those, which is why I was hoping you were talking about something else, you got your photo book, a passing mention, and the third is intriguing but we need to lay our hands on the "slim volume". Though the fact that it's slim is not helping it's case. Also, I agree it's legally defined, but it's not legally defined as a populated place so no presumed notability. ALso legally defined is not necessarily legally recognized. Again, try not to take my bluntness personally it's just a problem I'm trying to sort through. I'm very logical, and not very emotional so it's hard. James.folsom (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Apology accepted, thank you! SportingFlyer T·C 15:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This one is maybe alittle difficult The last reference "the history of Terra cotta" is the most useful, It's premise that the village has been there since 1855. But this isn't true... If you read closely and you know something about how things worked in the 19 century, then you know that in 1855 Some guy whose last name was tucker built a mill. Any time someone does that in the 19th century it automatically becomes named (Surname, What it is) (EG; Gunters landing, lower kings bridge road, Harper's ferry.....). These things are not populated places, though they sometimes attract population and they can be very notable. According to the article it's known as Salmoville 1866. But Salmoville was just a post and doesn't prove anything, if there was town it might still have been named Tucker's mill. We already know that post office names ≠ to their location (Coburn post office anybody?). Towns really don't change names easily, so I think what really happened was that when the post office got there everyone just switched to calling it Salmoville because that's where they now got their mail. If they kept saying they lived in Tuckers mill, god knows where the mail would go. So, in 1866 I think it was a mill and a post office serving a rural area. I don't think it was town in 1891 because the post office changed names, and as I've said real towns don't change names every time some important person renames the post office. But, they started quarry operations in the early 20th century, and those pictures do look like a town, and I would expect a factory town near a quarry at that time. I'm hoping there is newspaper coverage, but it looks scant. So this is just how I interpret the references that are provided with the article.James.folsom (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Found better references, that back up of the crappy ones. Any body want to strip the crappy refs and add the ones below?James.folsom (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per WP:GEOLAND. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All things passing WP:Geoland also must pass WP:GNG, and in any case it doesn't pass geoland since not one person has presented any proof it was a ever legally recognized populated place. James.folsom (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not true, GEOLAND just requires verification. SportingFlyer T·C 23:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hear what your saying but have no idea where you got it: This is Geoland verbatim for populated place: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation. This is WPGNG says about presumed notable: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." The further problem is there is no proof this is a populated place and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources.James.folsom (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Over many different geographic AfDs, all GEOLAND has generally required is proof that a place is populated and legally recognized in order to create a place about it. It is one of our lowest notability standards, because the assumption is if there's a dot on the map, there's something written about it. In practice it means towns and settlements, not neighbourhoods or subdevelopments, and Terra Cotta, Ontario is very clearly a settlement on the map. The provincial government recongises it as a settlement area (which is your proof), we have something to say about it, it's clearly marked on maps, people say they're from there specifically, the Visit Caledon website says it was "settled" [4], there have been things written about different buildings in the settlement, that's more than we need. SportingFlyer T·C 15:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        There's also been a community centre there since 1862: [5] SportingFlyer T·C 15:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing in GEOLAND offers grounds by which this can be kept in this state. GEOLAND only confers notability on places that are shown to pass GNG, and does not confer notability on places that have not been shown to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, GEOLAND is one of the rare parts of the encyclopedia which is separate from GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge if someone wants to do it This appears to have many refs, but two of them are dupes, and only 2 actually give any information. They are touristy in nature so I'm not sure they are independent enough. It's currently a rural area even according to the government. The one good article we have states that it is touristy and recreational since the period around 1940-1950 and that prior to that it was industrial. According to the newspapers it has always been rural, as there are no "tell tale" articles indicating a government. No town clerks or court announcements. Alot, want ads for farm work though. Many times when it is mentioned in the paper, it is said to be on the credit river, implying people might not know where it was. I can't find anything on the industrial period so I'm going with my interpretation from the one good ref that this is just a concentration of factories around a railroad station. The last ref even says that the place ended it's first life when that station burned, implying it wasn't really a population center. Regardless, even if it was a town, it's not got enough sources to merit coverage here.James.folsom (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's what the slim booklet is:
    • Zatyko, Mary (1979). Terra Cotta: A Capsule History. Erin, Ontario: Boston Mills Press. ISBN 0919822819.
  • It's in the Esquesing Historical Society's collection for Terra Cotta.

    Uncle G (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Uncle G, that was useful, though I can't believe I missed this before. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-toronto-star-terra-cotta-exists/140543904/ I can't be vote against any place that appeared in A Scooby-Doo episode.James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's unincorporated and rural, but a population center and popular tourist spot.

  https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-ottawa-journal-terra-cotta-clip-one/140544880/

  https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-ottawa-journal-terra-cotta-two/140544942/ James.folsom (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So that's three primary significant coverage local papers and the book makes one secondary significant coverage. Is that enough?James.folsom (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per references provided in article and above. Djflem (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Happy with the sources uncovered in this AfD that this meets the GNG, notwithstanding that it may also have presumed notability under NPLACE. Rupples (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a poor nomination by User:Bearcat. Ignoring the state of the article - there's no way that such a well known and old Ontario town should be nominated for deletion - as there's no doubt that GNG references can be dug out. It's easy to find an excellent article by little-known writer Pierre Berton in the Toronto Star in 1959, of which a good portion of the article is about Terra Cotta. There's an excellent history of Terra Cotta in The Georgetown Herald in 1988, however it is a paid advertisement - but could be used to improve the page. Among other entries is a Toronto Star article from 1992. There's also an extensive piece in the Globe and Mail in 1947 - though no where near as well written as done by that Berton guy. Perhaps not quite about Terra Cotta - but worthy of mention in the article, was the 1979 G&M piece about the Terra Cotta Inn. Back in 1873 there's a brief mention in The Globe of the Montreal Telegraph Company opening an office both here, and in nearby Cheltenham, Ontario, Canada. Perhaps there's a correlation with 1800s telegraph office and notable Ontario communities? There's no end of other articles as well! I wouldn't be surprised if it's been mentioned in the occasional book as well. Nfitz (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't do "poor" nominations. Again, the way GEOLAND works is that communities are accepted as notable if they're shown to pass WP:GNG on the quality of their sourcing, and are not accepted as notable if the sourcing is as poor as it was here. The quality of the sourcing is always the #1 most important thing, and nothing is ever so "inherently" notable that junk sourcing becomes good enough while GNG-worthy reliable sourcing becomes optional.

Secondly, a settlement in the GTA cannot possibly be "well-known" if I, a person in my 50s who has resided in the GTA for more than half my life, have never heard of it before. But that's a moot point, because it has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria — which, again, hinge on quality of sourcing, not subjective arguments about how "well-known" something is or isn't.

If the sourcing present in the article had been even remotely up to even the bare minimum of what's required, I wouldn't have brought it here for discussion in the first place. But as written, the article does not cite a single acceptable, reliable or GNG-worthy source at all, and GEOLAND requires articles to be based on reliable and GNG-worthy sources, and confers no notability freebies on articles that aren't based on reliable and GNG-worthy sources. Bearcat (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you must be aware, User:Bearcat, that AFD isn't done on the articles as written. Poor sourcing in an article isn't listed as a WP:DEL-REASON. And in that case one should edit a page rather than AFDing it - as noted in WP:ATD; GEOLAND neither trumps DEL-REASON nor ATD. I'm surprised that one could drive around what is now called Caledon without having spotted Terra Cotta on a road map, given that Terra Cotta has been on the official Ontario Road map for at least 60 years, and you drive right through it heading up Winston Churchill Road, north of Georgetown, and the Terra Cotta Conservation Area is very popular. You can't read an article about the recovery of the salmon in the Credit River without seeing a mention of Terra Cotta (formerly Salmonville). Though there's nothing wrong with not knowing something. And to be honest I'm not familiar with Alloa or Westfield, which appear to be more historic than current, what with urban sprawl. I'm surprised you never make mistakes in nomination - that's a reckless and dangerous approach. As for it being "well known" - well of course that's not a keep reason; but it is a reason to do a very rigorous BEFORE nominating. The nomination is especially poor given how controversial your AFD for nearby WP:Articles for deletion/Mayfield West, Ontario has been going - and that's a much less historic and notable town! Please refrain from nominating a series of similar articles for deletion until there is consensus on the first AFD. Nfitz (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in, if I may. I don't view the nomination as poor, but have !voted keep. Nfitz, it may be unwise to explicitly criticise the nominator/nomination within the discussion. Nominator, Bearcat has put forward sound arguments that sources are/were not good enough to establish notability. I disagree, now that additional sources have been found but acknowledge it's open to interpretation. I take the positive view that the discussion has unearthed sources that can be used to improve the article, if kept. Rupples (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that AFD, or even Prod, isn't about deletion. It's about content management. Both of these processes stimulate article improvement and speed along the demise of those that cannot be improved. It doesn't matter if mistakes are made, because none of this stuff is permanently deleted. All of it remains on "tape" somewhere, and can called back whenever. So lets just run the process and not get so emotionally involved. James.folsom (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet using the AFD process violates many Wikipedia policies - another one is WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. There are other solutions, such as redirect or merge, that solve both problems; and Bearcat knows this, as if you dig deeper, you'll find they did exactly that to an earlier version of this article, over 16 years ago. I'd hardly think that once or twice a quarter-century is worthy of stronger measures. Speaking of the Tape, you'll notice that when Bearcat started this, he overwrote the edit history of the previous version of this article, rather than merging it properly. Yes, it's on tape - but deeper than it should be for the average person to improve the article. But yes - the end situation has improved through all this. We've been talking about this for years - see WP:RUBBISH and WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Nfitz (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has done that, User:Rupples, and in a way it has improved the project. However, I don't think tossing out ATD, BEFORE, and DEL-REASON does violate Wikipedia policy. Should we change the policy? That's something we could debate elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Come on guys lets not take these things so personal, the purpose of this is for the wikipedia community to decide through rational discussion. Some good arguments have been made, but it seems that you both are too close to the subject. This subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, but some think that WP:GNG is too narrow. WP:GEOLAND should be the way to deal with it, but editors willfully misinterpret that to do whatever they want. However you feel about it, Wikipedia actually works through discussion and consensus, The policies seem to lag consensus.James.folsom (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Some (most?) are arguing that it does meet GNG. I don't think there's a clear Delete "vote" left other than the original nomination (which should have waited until the less controversial West Mayfield was resolved). Nfitz (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree, WP:GNG wants secondary sources. This only has one of those, and it's locally published. But I'm not going to bother voting because of WP:SNOWBALL. James.folsom (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I listed numerous sources from major papers above, going back to the 1870s, User:James.folsom. they are all secondary (though the minor paper isn't independent). Nfitz (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.