Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toronto West Detention Centre

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 (Non-admin closure, removed by nominator)

Toronto West Detention Centre

PROD tag removed by user. It has only about 2 lines, which really doesn't qualify as a stub Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 04:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (creator)...it has a lot more detail than most stubs. "X is a person" or "Y is in Paris" is not a formal stub, but three footnotes on a prison, its year of construction, address, director, capacity and security ranking are plenty of information for a stub. In fact, it's better than the vast majority of 360 prison stubs, and it's one of seven Maximum Security facilities in the country. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent stub, contains four sources and sufficient verifiable info (and now a category too). Needs expansion if anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Supposing this article is notable and verifiable (it seems to be, from a rough estimate), are there policies or guidelines that would qualify it for deletion based on the length alone? AfD hero (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no indication in either WP:Deletion policy or WP:Stub about how long or short a stub needs to be, or any way in which length would qualify it for deletion. The basic criteria for not getting a stub article deleted are that it needs to provide enough context for people to figure out what the article is about (which this article certainly does), and some indication of notability (this article also appears to do that). — λ (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Perfectly fine stub article, meets ideal stub article guidelines, contains references, and has been improved and expanded since deletion tag was added. — λ (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I am very disturbed by this nomination. Nominator justifies this deletion because the article creator removed an earlier {{prod}}. Nominator did not see fit to mention that the article, when {{prod}}ded, was just a single sentence long, and has been expanded since then. [1] Nominator has not seen fit to provide any justification for deletion, other than the removal of the {{prod}}. I would encourage the nominator to either withdraw this nomination, or to supply a justification for its deletion that is actually backed up by the wikipedia's deletion policies. Geo Swan (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've linked it to the Correctional Facilities of Ontario, Canada entry. I'm also going to work on expanding the article. --JeffJ (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True to my word, I've expanded the article and added more authoritative references re the facility itself. I believe the article now qualifies as a legitimate stub and the deletion tag should be removed.--JeffJ (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2008 (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.