Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Triangle, Denver

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. The final two comments in this debate have pretty much hit the nail on the head. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Triangle, Denver

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

This is an unofficial neighborhood of Denver. It even states in the article that it lines up with

• Delete. I support this deletion proposal and never really thought this article was needed in the first place. I think the article may have been an effort on the part of the real estate community to re-brand the area and avoid the stigma of the 'Civic Center' name. Certainly any content worth retaining can be incorporated into the
  Civic Center article. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC).[reply
  ]
  • I just copied over the only bit of info from Golden Triangle that I thought was worth it. The rest of it is already covered, unsourced, or irrelevant. Bluedude588 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Colorado. Bluedude588 (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 20:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A quick search shows that Golden Triangle and Civic Center are generally not the same but just have some overlap. I think both articles need to be corrected. This show that Civic Center is a basically rectangular shaped area containing government buildings and plazas. This shows that Golden Triangle is a much larger triangular shaped area with multiple uses and called " pretty much Denver's equivalent of New York City's Upper West Side." While there is some confusion because there are not formal boundaries for either, there are enough sources to support distinctive articles on both. MB 19:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry you are interpreting the sources you linked incorrectly. The thing that you linked for Civic Center is the Civic Center historic district, which is a completely separate thing. It corresponds roughly to the park that is there. If you think that there should be an article on the historic district, then that's fine, but that is not what the current Civic Center article is about. The article you linked about the Golden Triangle uses the exact same boundaries as what the city uses for the Civic Center neighborhood. When we are talking about neighborhoods, there is no difference between Civic Center and Golden Triangle. So do you wanna change your keep vote? Bluedude588 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not want to change my !vote. If you read the

Civic Center, Denver. I see that the two are sufficiently different and both notable. It doesn't matter that the city calls the neighborhood Civic Center; if Golden Triangle is more commonly used than that should be the article title. But this is another discussion unrelated to deletion. MB 05:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

You are still wrong. No, the article was not "almost entirely about the 'historic district'". If you actually read the two articles (Before I started fixing them) then you'd see that they are pretty much carbon copies. The Civic Center article focused a lot on the history of the park as well, but did it better anyways. You mention that it talks about the architectural style, but it was literally for a single sentence. A sentence that was rightfully just copied over to the correct article. You see them as sufficiently different only because you don't actually understand what they are. Civic Center and the Golden Triangle and the same thing, or at least so similar that they don't need two articles. They have the same borders, the same history, the same buildings, the same everything. As a last thing, the city actually doesn't even call the historic district Golden Triangle. It still calls it Civic Center. Golden Triangle is the colloquial name for Civic Center. Nothing else. If you want to assert something else, you are going to have to come up with evidence. Bluedude588 (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point. The Civic Center park and district around the park has lots of history and is obviously notable. It should have an article. We already have an article,,

Golden Triangle is about a large neighborhood with different borders. It should be kept also as it is independently notable. Just because in some instances Golden Triangle and Civic Center both refer to the same neighborhood doesn't negate the fact that we can/should have one article about the neighborhood and one article about the civic area (the park and government buildings), regardless of what either is titled. MB 02:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Some are saying the two are different names for more or less the same area. In which case both names should appear as alternatives in bold in the first sentence of a merged article. Right? Could a merged article be written which has a paragraph or section about each name, and where it came from and what it emphasizes, even though some say their areas largely overlap? I would assume that the "Civic Center" label is more emphasizing the presence of various important government buildings, while "Golden Triangle" may emphasize business or whatever else might be golden, and/or maybe triangular shape? Even though some definitions of area might be exactly the same, I am sure that there must be others which do not exactly overlap, and which emphasize different blocks/buildings/aspects. I may comment more later. --Doncram (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of merge makes sense. I've already merged the info as much as possible, so I assumed a redirect could work. I can't find any source that clearly lays out the difference. From what I understand, Civic Center is both the official name of the neighborhood, the name of the park there, and the name of a historic district that encompasses the park. Golden Triangle is a local name for the neighborhood of Civic Center. Thus, Golden Triangle should just redirect to Civic Center. If we wanted two articles then there should be Civic Center (Neighborhood) and Civic Center (Park) or something like that. Bluedude588 (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda like how the Five Points article incorporates RiNo into its name on the template for the neighborhoods of Denver. If Five Points and RiNo can work as one article, Civic Center and Golden Triangle absolutely can. Bluedude588 (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the term "Civic Center" has a generally understood meaning. A "civic center" is on the size level of what is apparently the Civic Center Historic District in Denver, i.e. 2 to 5 blocks in size, consisting of government department buildings and other public buildings and plazas/parks in between, especially plazas/parks holding statues/memorials serving government purposes. A "civic center" is not merely a park or plaza with no government buildings, nor is it a large neighborhood of several dozen or more blocks that contains any commercial or residential areas. I happen to be aware of fact that in some cities, the term Civic Center is used for just one building which combines multiple government depts/functions and an auditorium/concert hall.

See Civic Center, San Francisco, which is about original plans and later actual developments for a small area including concentration of very governmental buildings plus plazas. One version was a diamond- or plus-sign-shaped five block area of governmental and art museum buildings around a plaza/park.

The "Five Points" example is a good one. There is a general understanding of what a "five points" is, with the one in NYC being the most famous I am sure. It is literally a five-way intersection itself or a small area centered on that, going at most, say, 1/2 block down each of the streets. On a literal level, I simply do not believe the lede in the Five Points, Denver article, which asserts that "Five Points is..." a neighborhood or large district. No, literally a "five points" is one intersection, and sure, then there can also be a Five Points District or a Five Points Neighborhood which is a large neighborhood. However I am sure that it is okay to say that in Denver "Five Points" alone is also used as a shorter term for the large neighborhood as a whole, and even to say that in Denver "Five Points" nowadays rarely refers to the original area of the intersection of X, Y, and Z streets alone.

About "Civic Center" usage for Denver, it would help a lot if there was clear discussion up front that the actual/real "civic center" is a small area, probably pretty much the area that is included in the Civic Center Historic District. While the usage by the city of "Civic Center" to refer to a large district is pretty much a misnomer, a misapplication of the term, to refer to the large district also commonly known as the Golden Triangle because it is mostly a commercial area (if that is true) and/or includes most of the original commercial core of Denver (if that is true) and is triangular in shape. Is that about right? --Doncram (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless if Civic Center is a misnomer, that is the name of the neighborhood as decided by the city. We at Wikipedia do not get to decide what neighborhoods are called. I'm all for clearing up confusing in the opener of the article. Golden Triangle is the name of a neighborhood organization. There are hundreds of these in Denver and certainly they don't deserve their own article. Bluedude588 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't decide what neighborhoods are called, but we do decide on the titles of WP articles about them. The official name is one consideration, but the

WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence. If the neighborhood is more commonly called Golden Triangle, then that should be the WP article name also. MB 17:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe I have shown that it is more commonly called Civic Center though. I listed out the reasons pretty clearly down at the bottom of the page in my last edit. If anything we should have two articles named Civic Center, one for the neighborhood and one for the park/historic district. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the current

Civic Center, Denver is about proposals for, and development of, a City Beautiful-era real civic center: a park/boulevard area surrounded by government buildings. Then bizarrely there are confused other usages, like a claim about average house prices, which must be a claim about the much larger Civic Center District / Golden Triangle large neighborhood. Obviously there are no houses in a civic center. I believe that the photo at right is a picture of a real civic center (except it excludes showing the Colorado State Capitol itself), and I tend now to believe that "Civic Center" in Denver commonly means the actual civic center. I tend now to believe there needs to be one article about the actual civic center, and one about the big neighborhood. There has been mention of a park named Civic Center. Is that literally true? If so, that needs to be described as another misnomer, because a park cannot be a civic center. Or is it actually officially named "Civic Center Park" or something like that? --Doncram (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)*[reply

]

I could agree that one article for the Civic Center historic district and one for the neighborhood, though I still feel like they could probably be in one article. And yes it is officially named "Civic Center Park". I live right next to it. Bluedude588 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Civic Center, Denver from before the recent changes by Bluedude. That was more focused on the smaller district around the civic buildings. There certainly is a Civic Center Park, the green space around the state capitol and some other buildings. I think that can be covered within the article on the Civic Center since it is so closely related. But I think we agree that there should definitely be one article on the triangular shaped neighborhood and another on the civic buildings & park. MB 17:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Not sure why you keep attacking my edits. I didn't remove anything, and I actually even improved the parts on the civic buildings by adding sources. What was covered in that article needed to be expanded because Civic Center is a whole neighborhood, not just a district. Create one about the smaller district if you want, but that's not what this article is really about. Maybe the current article needs to be renamed Civic Center, Denver (Neighborhood) and then the other one Civic Center, Denver (District or Park). Bluedude588 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I have said was that you concluded before the AFD was over that

Civic Center and started make those changes. You just stated that the article needs to be expanded because Civic Center is a whole neighborhood. That conclusion has not gained consensus. Civic Center may be the official city name for the Golden Triangle neighborhood, but that does not necessarily drive WP. MB 17:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

(ec) I should have stated that MB invited to take a look at this AFD (which I would probably have gotten to soon, anyhow, as I generally review AFDs about places and this is the kind that I would comment in). MB and I have cooperated in the past about a lot of houses and historic districts listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places; we are both active members of

wp:NRHP

.

Hey i think you both are partly right. This version from November 5, before Bluedude588's edits was clearly already about the big neighborhood / district, and did include what i am calling "confusion" already. Also much of it was clearly about the original civic center idea. The first sentence is absolutely stating the article is about the neighborhood. The rest of the first paragraph only goes on about stuff in the actual civic center though. The first paragraph was:

Civic Center is a neighborhood in Denver, Colorado. The area is known as the center of the civic life in the city, with numerous institutions of arts, government, and culture as well as numerous festivals, parades, and protests throughout the year. The park bearing the same name is home to a fountain, several statues, and formal gardens, and includes a Greek amphitheater, a war memorial, and the Voorhies Memorial Seal Pond. It is well known for its symmetrical Neoclassical design.

Bluedude588 must have added the average house price mention (which is okay in an article about a neighborhood), and is obviously going with the neighborhood/district concept, and wants to develop about the neighborhood. I take it that MB might want to go with the civic center concept and might want to develop about the historic district.

There is currently no article about the historic district;

Civic Center, Denver article, which i think does not mention the National Historic Landmark status at all. The list of NHLS includes this document with multiple maps

which describes the National Historic Landmark District, and the highly overlapping NRHP district and the highly overlapping local historic district.

To move forward now, I and/or MB should develop a proper article about the actual civic center and the overlapping historic districts and National Historic Landmark. That might be done in a new article, rather than converting/refocusing the

Civic Center, Denver article, though that should be cannibalized to copy/move the City Beautiful stuff to the new article. Maybe that should go at Denver Civic Center

(currently just a redirect), which I think is the legal name for the National Historic Landmark. Or, we could convert/refocus the Civic Center, Denver article, and Bluedude588 could "take over" the current Golden Triangle article and make it properly convey about the big district / official neighborhood?

How about this: let's all pause on wrestling about the current Civic Center, Denver article. While I and/or MB create a draft new article about the civic center proper and the historic districts only, at Talk:Civic Center, Denver/Draft about civic center proper (a redlink subpage of a Talk page). And then later revisit this all. I have to go away now for at least several hours. --Doncram (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of creating an article on the historic districts. We still need to decide on what the name of the neighborhood article should be. I still believe that Golden Triangle should be redirected to the current Civic Center article, and with the current civic center article be renamed Civic Center (Neighborhood). As to which name should encompass the neighborhood (Civic Center or Golden Triangle) I want to link two pages. Denver Post crimes by neighborhood. Denver Gov website that lists it as Civic Center. Also want to point out that on Google Maps the area is only listed as Civic Center. The highlighted part of the map on the Golden Triangle article itself calls it civic center. And anecdotally, I live in Denver. People call it Civic Center. I've suspected that the whole Golden Triangle thing is to lure tourists to the area, but that's just speculation. If our goal in naming articles is to not confuse people, I think we should use the name that appears in most other spots, with a clarification in the article that it is sometimes called "Golden Triangle" Bluedude588 (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might go to the library today and see if I can find anything on the history of the names of this neighborhood. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

here's Denver's official neighborhoods map. Again, I think 'Golden Triangle' is an invention of real estate agents. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

But which article should become what?

Both articles were created back in 2005, very early in Wikipedia's history, and were complementary, one covering the real city center and one covering the Golden Triangle neighborhood, which is a real thing. Both mentioned, but differentiated themselves from, the Denver-defined neighborhood named "Civic Center".

• See this first version of "Civic Center, Denver", by editor Vertigo700, on 15 July 2005. Although it starts off saying it is a neighborhood, it is pretty clearly about the actual city center, and mentions the larger Denver-defined neighborhood "Civic Center" as a different thing, in my reading. YMMV. It includes the material about City Beautiful that remains in the article.
• See this first version of "Golden Triangle, Denver", by editor User:Klestrob44 on 19 September 2005. It is clearly about a big neighborhood, and notes that it largely overlaps with the Denver-defined neighborhood but is specifically different in its boundaries, going one block further one way, for example. It included good material which should probably be restored.

I guess with some reluctance that we probably do not want two separate articles about the mostly-overlapping big neighborhoods; one article should cover them both (and respect that there are some differences).

Since 2005, evidently, editors have been arriving at the Civic Center, Denver article with varying expectations. Some have taken steps towards coopting it to be about the neighborhood, so it became "confusing" (my term). Now I see that Bluedude588 is making edits as if they assume this discussion is over, as they proceed in developing the Civic Center article to be about the neighborhood. Bluedude588, could you pause please? And the Golden Triangle article has been edited poorly and has also gone downhill and no longer differentiates itself properly from the city services-defined neighborhood.

I happen to take Wikipedia's attribution of contributions pretty seriously, and think it matters that the articles should have their edit history showing the major contributions, especially early ones, that developed the articles. From this point of view then, I would like to take the Civic Center, Denver article and refocus it to be about the real civic center. And I would like for the Golden Triangle article to be developed as the neighborhood one. Bluedude can easily copy in the text they have recently been developing at the other article and get full credit for their wording, while it would be a pain or impossible to fix the edit history by administrative tools. It would seem bizarre to me, and would screw the historic contributors to both articles attribution-wise, if the AFD proposal on the table here (delete or redirect Golden Triangle) went through. Right now, I would rather not create a brand new article about the historic district area; I would like to develop the original article about that, so that old and new contributions in the same vein are together. Bluedude, can you agree to pause your working in the opposite direction? I think you could possibly agree to this overall proposal instead.

About the names for the two articles: how about the one covering the real civic center being moved to, say, "Denver Civic Center", which has some provenance(?) as the actual national-level name for the district as a U.S. National Historic Landmark. This would be replacing the redirect there (which has no meaningful edit history). And for the article now at Golden Triangle, Denver, being moved to "Civic Center, Denver", which seems consistent with naming of Denver's other operations/service areas.

About how the neighborhood article is to be developed: It should show both terms in bold in the first sentence. It needs to give proper prominence to the Golden Triangle term, which is a real thing, and which has some differences with the Denver government-defined neighborhood. There are Wikipedians good at producing maps; a request should be made for a map showing the boundary outlines of both the city-defined neighborhood and the Golden Triangle merchants association definition of their area. --Doncram (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I suggest this AFD should be closed with "Keep" decision, consistent with the original two complementary articles and with consensus again now that there should be two complementary articles. For clarity in next steps, the closer should state that the article at "Golden Triangle, Denver" is again to be the one about the neighborhood, and the "Civic Center, Denver" article is again to be the one about the real
  wp:RM should be opened to consider renaming both articles. IMO, the wp:RM process is a good one attracting regular participants who are better at renamings than are the regulars at AFD. --Doncram (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As far as the name for the neighborhood article, if I search on "Golden Triangle", I find all kinds of hits using that name, various news sources including Denver Post, hotels.com, zillow.com, nextdoor.com, zagat.com, grubhub.com, yelp.com, and so on. On top of all that, I found the city of Denver planning department using the "unofficial name" [2] !!!! It seems to be more than just a few realtors trying to promote the area with a better name. Even in google maps, if I search for "Civic Center Denver", it highlights the triangle and labels it "Golden Triangle" at the top and also "Civic Center" [3]. So I am quickly coming to the conclusion that the current name,

Golden Triangle, Denver is the most common name for the neighborhood. I agree with you that if there is no consensus here on this, then a RM discussion should be opened. MB 03:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything that has been said except the naming of the articles. The neighborhood's official and most common name is Civic Center. I don't know why everything that I have pointed out in regards to the naming has been ignored. Civic Center is also mentioned as the name on the Denver Post, nextdoor, ect. And I don't see what you mean by your Google Maps link. I see nothing there that says Golden Triangle. The neighborhood's name is not Golden Triangle. More sources call it Civic Center. Here's a simple test. Google "Map of Denver Neighborhoods" and look at the results. The VAST majority of maps depict it as "Civic Center". Why are so many people suggesting to name it by its less common, and less official, name? Make a Civic Center (Neighborhood) and a Civic Center (Park). I'm messaging a history professor at Metro about this for some input too. Bluedude588 (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the professor I messaged. And he backs up what I said. To quote: "As far as I know, it's basically a marketing ploy. In the 90s, LoDo became the first Denver neighborhood marketed as the next great thing, essentially a way to package gentrification and remaking a crumbling area. Golden Triangle is a lot like LoHi, RiNo, and other invented identities to market an up and coming area to potential buyers.". Using Google's search by date function I could confirm that there isn't any references to Golden Triangle until around 1998. He also recommended looking at a book called "Denver Landmarks and Historic Districts ", so hopefully I can find that at the library or something. But I was right. It seems more like a relevantly recent rebranding. The neighborhood article on Wikipedia should be called Civic Center. Bluedude588 (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Information Update So I ended up going to the library. Apparently all the city-defined Denver neighborhoods came about in the early 70s. Here is an article about it. Then I found a book called "DIA and Other Scams" by Phil Goodstein. It states that the term Golden Triangle came about in the late 1970s, around the time that the area started be invested more in. Interestingly, I guess the area's original common name was "Evans Addition". Bluedude588 (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I threw the naming question to the people of the Denver subreddit. Here's what they said. Overwhelming majority said that they call it Civic Center. Civic Center is both the common and the legal name for the neighborhood. Bluedude588 (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. This is an AFD not the

wp:RM that can follow later. It would help others not have to read all this, Bluedude588, if you would agree that the consensus is that both articles need to be kept. Then we could move on to the renaming issue, which is not settled here because there is not agreement here and this is not the forum to handle that. --Doncram (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually i think Bluedude588 did agree further above that 2 articles are needed. No one disagrees about that. This AFD is ready to be closed with "Keep" outcome, and perhaps with direction to proceed to wp:RM next, if the closer feels it is necessary to say that. --Doncram (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you set up the RM? I'm not sure how to proceed with that. Bluedude588 (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the consensus is that both articles should be kept. I don't think Golden Triangle is really a thing. Wikipedia has been successfully used to 'legitimize' the Golden Triangle name to promote the interests of a few. There's no article called "The Sunflower State" because the article for Kansas covers this. One entity, one article. Encyclopedias don't have multiple articles for the same thing. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that there could be two articles, with one for the park/historic district and one for the neighborhood. The current two articles could serve as a base to that, but just with the Golden Triangle one being renamed. Do you agree with that? Bluedude588 (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of the original proposal — to delete the Golden Triangle article. --Jeffrey Beall 16:41, 14 December 2019

I think all are participating here in good faith, but I think there is a procedural misunderstanding in effect. It remains the fact that all participating want for there to be an article about the big triangular-shaped neighborhood, and I am pretty sure that no one objects to there being a separate article about the actual civic center which is clearly notable on its own (being the subject of 3 separate historic district listings, and there being plenty to say about it). I suppose someone could potentially argue for keeping two separate big neighborhood articles, but no one has argued for that. Jeffrey Beale, we are agreeing about that; we don't want one Kansas article and one "Sunflower State" article, we just want one article that presents/explains both names which apply to the same thing.

As I have said above, then it seems right and good to me for the 2005 article about the actual civic center (the article currently named "Civic Center, Denver") to be designated for use in making the historic district article, and for the 2005 article about the big triangular neighborhood (the article currently named "Golden Triangle, Denver") to be designated for use in making the big triangular neighborhood article.

I hear what Jeffrey Beall (JB) is saying, that they want the article currently named "Golden Triangle" article deleted, but I understand that to be, well, like a political or negotiating stance, because they really really dislike the "Golden Triangle" term and they want it abolished. JB, I think you can/should express/explain your dislike for that name in the

wp:RM

which should happen, and also on the Talk page of the big neighborhood article going forward. I happen to think both names for the big neighborhood should be given in the article about the big neighborhood, but I am open to discussion about what sources actually say, which is what should "win" consensus in the Talk discussions going forward. (Frankly some sources above where the City of Denver calls it the Golden Triangle neighborhood are pretty convincing to me that it is a name which should at least be mentioned, but this is a side debate IMHO.) I suppose that JB could think this is important in terms of tactics towards "winning" the naming question, because the default in a disputed, equally divided RM would be to keep the original name. To JB, perhaps this helps: I myself don't think the big neighborhood article's name matters; I am willing to go along with it reflecting "Civic Center" somehow and not showing "Golden Triangle" in the article name itself (though I do currently think the latter term has to be mentioned and there has to be a redirect from it). Honestly I think a proper wp:RM will work fine.

Anyhow, given JB's position, there is not unanimous consensus here, so this AFD cannot be settled "Speedy Keep"; an admin or non-admin closer has make a decision in the presence of disagreement. IMO, the only reasonable decision is "Keep", plus perhaps direction to the participants to use the wp:RM process about the articles' naming going forward plus use the Talk page of the big neighborhood article to debate whether it should mention "Golden Triangle" or not. I don't think the closer should try to make a decision about what the final names of articles should be, because AFD is not the right forum for that and we haven't been trying to properly discuss/decide that.

The only alternative possible, and what I think JB wants, is to decide a) to delete the 2005 article about big neighborhood, b) allow creation of a new separate article about the actual city center, and c) usurp/transform (or continue the usurption/transformation that has already started) the 2005 article about the actual civic center to be about the big neighborhood instead. However, if that were done, IMHO it would be necessary for administrators to do edit history merges to put the 2005-and-on history of the civic center into the new article, and to move the edit history from 2005-and-on of the neighborhood to put that into the transformed article. This is unreasonable. Actually I think (am not sure) that admin tools have limits and might not be able to achieve what is necessary to make the history show properly, i.e. to put in place exactly what is directly accomplished by taking what I call the "reasonable" decision. I think it is far better to simply acknowledge here that JB and Bluedude588 do indeed have strong opinions about what the big neighborhood article is named going forward, and about whether it mentions the "Golden Triangle" name or not. Fine. I cannot imagine they really care about what the past edit history shows, as long as they get their way in the naming and content going forward. (However, IMHO the edit history from 2005 on does matter, meeting our commitment to editors that they should get reasonable credit in the edit history for what they contributed.)

I'm sorry this has gotten so long, and I will try not to comment any much further. I think everything needed to be said has been said, and I do think this is ready to be closed (with "Keep" decision). --Doncram (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say that I agree with what you wrote here. And personally I am fine with the name Golden Triangle being mentioned in the article about the neighborhood. I just don't think it should be the title. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Having read the above, this AfD is probably heading for a "no consensus" close but with a comment that there is a "weak, but not unanimous, consensus" that there should be two articles, but disagreement over the names/titles of those articles (a concern that "Golden Triangle" is not the appropriate name), and thus an RM is needed to resolve. Have I got that right?. Britishfinance (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say it should be "keep" based on the weight of the arguments (but I am involved). Since "no consensus" gives the same result, either way there will need to be a follow-up RM to resolve the names/titles. MB 14:56, 17 December 2019 (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.