Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown Canada

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Canada

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

Before I attempt to prune some frankly absurd content out of this newly created disambiguation page - do we need it all? No one refers to Ottawa as downtown Canada, nor do we refer to our downtowns that way. Which leaves us with a joke-name in the South Park series, or how Detroit residents may refer to Windsor, Ontario -- or so it is WP:WEASELishly and tenuously claimed, "...since some people consider." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely pejorative and useless, and no, Detroiters don't usually refer Windsor as this, but as either "Windsor", "Canada", "Ontario", "across the river" or any of a number of other appropriate ways to refer to it. Nate • (chatter) 00:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no valid entries. PamD 14:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The place does not exist. The term is not commonly used. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a scholarly book entitled Downtown Canada: Writing Canadian Cities, viewable at Amazon.com here and reviewed here. However, my search through the Amazon text of the book didn't reveal any suggestions that the phrase is commonly used, and I find no other indications to this effect. The South Park gag is not sufficient to convey notability on the phrase. No prejudice, of course, toward recreating an article of this name about the book if it can be shown to be notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 13:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no valid entries per Pam Widefox; talk 17:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on Wikipedia in my entire time here — and that's saying a lot given that I've been around here for a decade. The only usage here that's even remotely valid for this title is the South Park reference, and a throwaway joke in a single episode of a TV series is not a topic that warrants a Wikipedia article or a disambiguation page. Delete with fire. No prejudice against subsequent repurposing of this title as an article about the Edwards/Ivison book instead, if there's enough reliable source coverage about it to support one — but even if we can justify that, we can do it from a redlink and don't need this nonsense hanging around in its edit history. Bearcat (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2014 (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.