Talk:Canaryville

This Article should not be a stand-alone

I propose that the argument for merging the Canaryville article back to the New City article should be reconsidered based on the following:

1. The recognized community areas defined in Chicago are, regardless of current consideration, still determined by the city, and are current so far as the maps are printed today (in 2009). The reasoning for the defining of areas was exactly for the purposes given to not merge: neighborhood names do change, but the community areas do not. Certainly not at the discretion of WP editors.

You bring up a very good point. After reading Community areas of ChicagoI can see that community and neighborhood are not the same thing. Based on your concern I edited the article so it does not imply that the boundary of a community is being changed or defined. The defined boundary within the article is for a neighborhood, not a "community". The improper use of neighborhood and community (as defined by Chicago) may be a problem in other Chicago neighborhood articles. To me the edits is preferred to a merge (see my opposition to a merge below).Pknkly (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

2. In case that argument is questioned, here's an example: Canaryville is smaller than Pilsen, yet Pilsen is included as part of the community area Lower West Side, Chicago, which it shares with Heart of Chicago (a Little Italy section).

3. If anything, Bridgeport is more closely connected to Canaryville than is New City, but it doesn't matter so far as the community areas are concerned, because they are both subject to geographic boundaries, not the whims or opinions of Irish Americans living in either.

I urge this matter to be reconsidered. Perhaps some other WikiProject Chicago types could weigh in on this?Ryecatcher773 (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Neighborhoods can stand alone. See Streeterville, which is part of the Near North Side, Chicago. The article as written would fail an WP:AFD. Was this article previously considered for deletion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, since the Encyclopedia of Chicago gave it its own article, I presume it to be a significant enough neighborhood to have its own article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the rationale used from the previous argument, but you've missed my point -- Pilsen doesn't have its own article and everyone knows where it is. Streeterville is a poor example, based on its size and high profile. I live very close to Canaryville, and outside of it being known as a rough neighborhood unwelcoming to outsiders, it has very little (if anything) to warrant a separate article. That Encyclopedia of Chicago isn't the definitive source for neighborhood areas (which, incidentally, the WP format does follow). Without the Stockyards, or any other real anchor for the community, Canaryville is just a residential section. By your reasoning, we should give every few blocks of residentially zoned space its own article if someone argued for it. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason for Wikipedia to rigidly follow one neighborhood plan or another. Also, TonyTheTiger was not citing the Encyclopedia of Chicago for some neighborhood plan. He mentioned it in discussing Canaryville's notability. That is the real question here: is Canaryville notable enough for its own argument? My answer to the question is that it may be, but for the time being it is a needless fork from New City, Chicago, and should be merged in as a section. Reading between the lines, I think that TonyTheTiger may agree with that. -Rrius (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge - The subject, a specific Chicago neighborhood, is notable enough to have its own article. Future editors, with an interest in local Chicago neighborhoods facts and history - in this case Canaryville, may find well sourced information that is relevant to the article. So, based on future potential, I think it meets a notability standard for having its own article. By the way - Pilsen should one. Pknkly (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Question: If an article needs substance to exist as an article, what exactly is this article going to tell us about Canaryville that couldn't be stated (as it originally was) in the neighborhood's subheading of the New City article? How much space do you need to talk about a residential neighborhood with very little (if any) notable landmarks (besides St. Gabriel's)? Historically, with the rise and fall of the Stockyards (as is the case with Back of the Yards -- which incidentally also is part of the New City article) so went the neighborhood.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The article may have future substance that people could add if they cared to do research. I've seen articles with a lot less lingering as a stub for years. Chicago is the city of neighborhoods - so lets not deny articles about neighborhoods. Pknkly (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)