Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alloa, Ontario

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 no consensus as to all. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion of any of these subjects. BD2412 T 02:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alloa, Ontario

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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

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

Following up on

WP:GNG to get their own articles, and only get redirects to the municipality otherwise. But none of these three neighbourhoods are being shown to pass GNG at all, so they all need to be deleted, and have their original redirects to Caledon (which I again had to delete in the process of moving these pages to their proper titles) restored. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect Alloa to agreed article, No evidence it was ever more than just a rural farming area. Sources indicate the towns tended to form around mills and such, and I have't found anything in the ontario papers mentioning anything other than farming going on there. Most mentions are actually to Alloa Scotland. As the area was settled by a lot of people from Alloa scotland, the local papers published a lot of news about Alloa and scotland.James.folsom (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Belfountain and especially Wildfield, are borderline. I want to see more discussion and think on it. Wildfield in particular has some newspaper coverage that is the kind of stuff that I view as a pause. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-toronto-star-wildfield/140479927/. I want to stress that existence is not a keep vote, it's reason to keep digging.James.folsom (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've read alot about Wildfield, it seems to be settlement centered around a catholic church. Currently, it is a neighborhood in Brampton. If it were me, I'd write an article about St Patricks Church and just put all the material about wildfield in that article. There is very little in the way good sources for wildfield.James.folsom (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a book from the 1980s about the church on the church's website - it would be a good source. https://stpatricksbr.archtoronto.org/en/our-community/parish-story/our-parish-history/st.-patricks-wildfield---150th-anniversary/ Also search for it's original name - Gribbin. Nfitz (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Belfountain is more well known of the 3. There's a book https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-toronto-star-belfountain-book/140550148/. If it's reliable and independent, then it's a good secondary source. Any thoughts Uncle G?James.folsom (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not familiar with local government boundaries in Ontario, but I think that's causing a bit of the problem here: it looks like Caledon is one of the municipalities within Peel and encompasses quite a large area of land, and that Caledon was once a township? It's incredibly confusing, but it's pretty clear to me Belfountain was a settlement/hamlet within the township - Terra Cotta, Alloa, and Wildfield also appear on a 1937 map before any of the suburban development occurred. I strongly disagree these are neighbourhoods and they look like they were recognised populated places in their own time, and in Belfountain and Terra Cotta's case, are still currently recognised as such, even though they are completely within the Caledon municipality, and therefore are okay per GEOLAND. I will note Alloa has the least amount of coverage I've been able to find, and I didn't BEFORE Wildfield, but this also should not have been bundled. SportingFlyer T·C 12:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absent

WP:GEOLAND for its own article and a neighbourhood or community that just gets a redirect cuts on what the place's status is today, not on unsourced or primary-sourced claims about what its status might have been 50 or 100 years ago. That is, even if they were recognized populated places in their own time, they still only get to have their own standalone articles as separate topics from Caledon if their sourcing is on point, and only get redirects to Caledon if their sourcing is less than on point. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Not only was Caledon once a township, the towns in question here, weren't even in Caledon township, but in the neighbouring townships of Albion, Chinguacousy, and Toronto Gore. They are a long, long way from the town of Caledon. Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, that WP:GEOLAND interpretation is clearly incorrect - Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Belfountain clearly isn't even abandoned, and it's clearly a stand-alone place, with a public school, cemetery, and a welcome sign on the roadway which says "settled circa 1825." Wildfield specifically had a church built - Through most of the 1890s Holmes worked in partnership with Albert Asa Post, a former student of Henry Langley. Post and Holmes specialized in the sort of High Victorian ecclesiastical and collegiate design that they inherited from Street, Connolly and Langley. The simple parish church, designed about 1894, for the village of Wildfield in the Toronto Gore, is typical of their work (Fig. 1). ([1]) The church was apparently built in 1830 and then again in 1894 according to the book Catholics at the Gathering by Mark McGowan, 1992, p. 21 (endnotes), and is also in Place Names of Ontario (Alan Rayburn, 1997) but I cannot access the text apart from the fact it was first known as Grantville or Grantsville. I can't find much on Alloa apart from that it may have just been a post office according to an 1869 gazetteer. SportingFlyer T·C 16:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's wrong to suggest that these old towns are "neighbourhoods" in Caledon. Caledon was a mostly rural township, and these are villages that date back to the 1800s - even Wildfield, which was renamed from Gribbin around 1900 or so. Belfountain is very well known. This user notes above other similar nominations - all of which are highly contested. Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing of substance to Alloa; its practically a nonexistent place that hardly warrants a standalone article. Even after urbanization gets more complete on the Brampton side, it would only get mentioned in an article of the future neighborhood it's deemed part of (or the article written and submitted again if said neighborhood gets called Alloa). *:Transportfan70 (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's actually the case, then the AFD should be closed, and that one should be discussed separately. I only looked at Belfountain and Wildfield (and Terra Cotta and West Mayfield) before it became clear that this AFD was very poor. Though Alloa has a fair-sized school, and at least one church - I wouldn't be surprised if something does pop if one did an in-depth search - which clearly hasn't been done for the other 4 communities that are part of, or are referenced in, this nomination. And still, the nomination basis is that these are neighbourhoods - when in reality they all 150-year to 200-year old villages. It's very clear a BEFORE wasn't done that considered them as anything other than recent suburbs Nfitz (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Belfountain. Clearly a recognised and separate settlement, as the sign testifies, and therefore meets
WP:GEOLAND. Neutral on the other two. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Liz it seems like clear consensus to keep Belfountain, while the other two should be discussed further? Geschichte (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No prejudice on new, separate AFDs for those two. Though I odn't know, @Liz, why we need a relist, when it's very clear that any of them is notable - and that nominator is so far off base, that one of the two similar AFDs he was comparing this to, was an unanimous keep. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now both are keeps - though one did attract a single delete. Nfitz (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see three editors advocating Deletion of at least one article so this is not a unanimous situation even now, Nfitz. I was going to relist this discussion again but after your remarks, I'll sit out of this and let another admin or editor take over the future of this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets quit being so nasty with other editors, Notability is based on consensus and is an art not a science. If you read WP:GNG in it's strictest interpretation, these would get deleted. This process exists so that editors can seek input on articles of questionable notability (which these are BTW). If the editor had submitted New York, NY to AFD, you could give 'em a little crap for it. We should just let the processes work and stop acting like AFD is some kind of witch hunt.James.folsom (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In itself yes, but if you submit New York as an AFD, a few days after submitting Chicago and Boston, both of which were heading to obvious keeps, there is a problem. That said, a witch hunt wasn't my intent. The failure of those AFDs, which in my mind are for locations slightly and significantly less notable than Belfountain, are relevant to this discussion. Wildfield seemed to have enough references to it when I checked, and at least Alloa appears on old maps, unlike West Mayfield - though I've not researched Alloa; the AFD fails with Belfountain. Grouping well-known villages with lesser-known villages doesn't work, and there's no prejudice against listing Alloa separately. Nfitz (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I wasn't trying to single you out Nfitz, I should have stated that at the outset. That's why I didn't indent, I thought that was obvious. I just see all these editors lashing out because they see an affront that may just be another editor trying to do something useful. Just a general call for some inclusion and understanding. is all. James.folsom (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - and wise words. Nfitz (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contrary to claims deep befores have been done on Alloa, and it should be deleted. The other two probably aren't going kill anybody to keep. So let's just delete Alloa, and leave the other two. There are certainly other things more deserving of our time.James.folsom (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would any place on the provincial road map ever be a delete, and not a redirection to whatever it's in; in this case, I'd go for
WP:ATD. I'd say any town on the official map is a likely search target. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Because these discussion have seen time and again that maps don't prove anything, and there are many reasons why things are own maps. Also if your going to write anything about a dot on a map, you ought to write the correct information. You need sources to do that. Show me some proof there was ever a town called Alloa, as opposed to just a rural area known as a Alloa. Rural areas are often marked on maps as well. I failed miserably in finding any tangible evidence, but evidence is all that is needed to change that vote. Show me any reliable source that the place was a town. Show me the sources, Ill write the damn article. James.folsom (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Own maps User:James.folsom? I was referring to THE official road map of the Government of Ontario - you know, the famous one that we all grew up with - at least anyone who is under the age of about 110. The one that doesn't show most roads and villages, because it's 1:700,000 and covers about 800 km on one sheet. That being said, I misremembered, and while Befountain (of course), and even Wildfield are on the road map - Alloa isn't. Still it is in the famous 1880ish Peel County map - and I think any settlement on there is a decent redirect target. 04:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that your aware own=on. And yes Belfountain and Wildfield are there because they exist. And my point remains, rural communities appear on 1800's maps too, you know. I'm not trying to be unreasonable, there simply are not any sources that support your point of view. It was and is just a rural farming community, of that I have no doubt, because I did a ton of reading trying to prove otherwise. James.folsom (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow User:James.folsom. Why go to and break the AGF rule ... the word "on" never crossed my mind. Please apologize - I thought you were trying to imply that there are a lot of maps by a lot of different people around. The 1880 map shows buildings at the intersection (well maps, as Mayfield Road is the dividing line between the two mapsheets). Things do disappear - look at Speyside, Ontario, just to the west - you wouldn't know it was a town once, from the abandoned gas station, and a couple of more modern houses along 15 Sideroad - no evidence of the former roads that I can see while walking around Speyside; but I digress. Why haven't you haven't explained why a redirection is not an option? Nfitz (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for calling me on the AGF thing. I am really sorry about that. I've realized I've gotten to involved with this and that the nominator also called for a redirect. I will change my vote. James.folsom (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus here either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because a place is on a map, doesn't mean they don't get deleted. Even the article for
Stayner
(a full-blown village of 4,000 plus people) has been deleted/redirected.

Transportfan70 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stayner hasn't been deleted. It's never been proposed for deletion, or nominated at articles for deletion. The person who redirected it indicated that if developed it would be okay as an article. Maybe you should work on it, and bring it back. You could insist that it be taken to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion. But I think I would work on it a little and see if it stays, you could discuss this with the other editor. James.folsom (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI'd like to change my vote to "Keep". I think I'll be in Brampton this Sunday so I'll take a photo of the development in the area for more article notability.

Transportfan70 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe these photos can contribute to notability James.folsom (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But they do contribute to making a place more standalone article-worthy by showing if its substantial, which the area is now becoming. Transportfan70 (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

concur with that. James.folsom (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three These are settlements which are verified as small but historical communities. BusterD (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While information is relatively scarce due to the size of each of these communities, all three have unique history attached to them. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 22:59, 11 March 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.