Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideal Bread Company Factory

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Bread Company Factory

[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)

Seems to fail GNG, No evidence of passing SNG for buildings too. Cited sources seem to be user generated (see read the plaque). Wikipedia:Before does not revealing anything. Wikipedians please comment. Okoslavia (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The designation under the Ontario Heritage Act is equivalent to designation as a National Register of Historic Places in the United States. The text on the plaque was provided by the city, not the building's developer, and appears to be independent. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain Can you please point out any editorial board there. The Submit option there making me doubt on its reliability. Anybody can submit content there. Okoslavia (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Okoslavia As far as I can tell, Read-The-Plaque and Toronto Plaques do not have editorial boards. Both sites show plaques that either they have photographed or that someone else has photographed. The editorial decision-making for the text on a plaque like this is made by heritage professionals at the City of Toronto, the same ones who wrote the statement of reasons for designation attached to the city by-law that designated the building as a heritage property, BY-LAW No. 464-2003. So the plaque is a summary of the statement of reasons for designation, and Read-The-Plaque is simply showing what the City of Toronto staff wrote. I added some references about the building after it was converted to lofts. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  So the provided sources are not contributing anything for Notability. Okoslavia (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The by-law is the notability. There are nothing else that can be said. Oaktree b (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I only linked to the photo of the plaque on that site. It's not the site we're using for notability, the contents of the plaque. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.[1] -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Buildings in the Ontario Heritage Act register are notable, as are those in the NRHP. The plaque is used to ad context to the story of the building. There is a three page history of the building in the relevant by-law, I figured the plaque was a nice summary of it, it's only a few sentences so can be quoted under fair-use laws. This is a notable as any of the other hundreds of buildings under the Heritage Act with articles. Oaktree b (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also mentioned here for the fusspots [2], and a brief history by the City of Toronto about the building [3], some mention in a book here [4]. I think we're fine for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Covered in a period source/magazine [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions do not count for notability. This book is a clear example of Passing mention. Okoslavia (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again the magazine is passing mention. Okoslavia (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source is again a passing mention or not about factory itself. Okoslavia (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOFEAT. Certainly more than just statistics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the Toronto Life article, the two Globe and Mail articles, the by-law with the heritage study and various historical records on file. What more are you looking for? Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can use passing mentions to build up the article, that's the whole point of wiki. Get some strong sources as your base, then hang facts and other interesting tidbits on the base you've built. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. There is absolutely no case for deletion. Please nominate carefully and stop the WP:BLUDGEONING. It wastes even more WP resources!!! gidonb (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb stop making nonsense comments as no-one is enjoying it and prove how GNG is meeting here. You might want to read AGF. Okoslavia (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also as far as your lecture of carefulness. You need to be more careful per this, before nominating articles for deletion, As situations come when you have to withdrawn the nom. Okoslavia (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Torontolife article is also passing mention. Frankly I can't see any source which is beyond the passing mention. Please come back with better sources. Okoslavia (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've said all there is to say. Please stop pinging me. The heritage act register makes it notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Literally that was my first ever ping to you. Okoslavia (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then please stop replying to everything I say and review Bludgeon as above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the historic record, as stories easily get born and start living their own life, I'm mighty proud of the referenced AfD and my own withdrawal. Both were totally called for by the situation in the article. It also tells the story of what we should focus on: service and sound analysis, not on winning an argument. The improvement of WP is all the winning we should pursue! gidonb (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you should be proud, gidonb. Your nomination and subsequent behaviour were a model for AfDs done well.

- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also an entire article on the factory here [6] from 1920. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Great find, Oaktree b. -A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments, notable with the sources provided. Skynxnex (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's snowing! gidonb (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't agree that "designation under the Ontario Heritage Act is equivalent to designation as a National Register of Historic Places", but it's worth something. There are seven sources and the information is solid. No reason to delete at this time. Last1in (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2023 (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.