Talk:Roncesvalles Carhouse

{{prod}}...

Drmies nominated Eglinton LRT Carhouse for deletion a few days ago. In that discussion I advised them that they seemed to have made their nomination without actually reading the article or complying with WP:BEFORE.

Drmies placed a {{prod}} on this article, around the same time, that said:

Another article for, basically, a garage for streetcars in Toronto. No inherent notability, no references or hits on the internet that prove that it passes GNG.

Drmies is an experienced contributor, so it is hard to explain why the web search they claim they performed was so inadequate.

Drmies has made similar assertions in several related discussions they initiated. They have also asserted that "there is no innate notability" to buildings like this. They made this assertion, as if it were obvious, and without any reference to wikipolicy or other wiki-documents.

Bridges, canals, highways, rapid transit lines, cargo ships, and facilities like these, are the essential infrastructure our technological society depends on. Some people who live in our highly technological society nether know or care where the goods and services they rely upon every moment of every day come from. They want to remain blissfully ignorant of the infrastructure we rely on.

Environmental critics would argue that every member of our society has an obligation to understand our infrastructure, and the terrible environmental problems we face would be much less significant if we were all aware of our reliance on this infrastructure. Well, we have WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We shouldn't try to start or retain articles because the topics are important to environmentalist ideologs.

Rather, articles on infrastructure should be created, or retained, when there are reliable sources that enable the topic to measure up to GNG, or a special purpose notability guideline.

There is no question, to my mind, as to whether the topic of Roncesvalles Carhouse measures up to GNG. Drmies web searches were insufficient. In addition, I think they have the unconscious bias I mentioned, where they see the essential infrastructure our technological society relies on should be regarded as "beneath notice."

Consider the Panama Canal -- notable. Now, when the Canal was being constructed, there were epidemics. It cost many lives. But I would argue that the Panama Canal would be notable, even if it had been constructed on time, and on budget, with zero deaths or injuries. Even if Drmies is happy living his or her life in ignorance of the infrastructure their life relies on, there are still the rest of us. School-kids want to do projects on infrastructure like the Canal. Other people would want to read about it out of curiosity, or vacation dreams, or they want to understand better how capacity issues affect the cost of goods they buy; or they want to understand changing rain patterns may cause the reservoir that fills the locks to run out of water.

At the other end there is the infrastructure we wouldn't cover here, because there are no references that write about it.

I think the Roncesvalles Carhouse, the Russell Carhouse, the Wilson Yard -- three related articles Drmies recently nominated for deletion -- are all firmly on the notable side of this range.

Drmies fell short in his or her web-searches. And, I suspect their unconscious bias against essential infrastructure led them to discount the value of the references they did find.

We have a local historian here in Toronto, Mike Filey, who has published over a dozen books on Toronto, several of which devote several pages to the Roncesvalles Carhouse. He publishes a weekly column in one of the Toronto papers. He has covered the Carhouse in multiple columns. He is not the only author who has covered it. Geo Swan (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• You found me out: I'm biased against infrastructure. And I thought no one had noticed--I was so careful. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Dude, I read this over again, and I just can't decide whether to just crack a smile or laugh out loud. You have really outdone yourself. Drmies (talk)

• I've removed that {{prod}}. I think I made substantive points, which the nominator either couldn't or wouldn't address.

I'd be interested in seeing substantive concerns voiced here. I found some other references I am going to add to this article, in the next couple of days, I've been occupied addressing an AFD.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Why do you do this? Carhouses are important facility and in Toronto history. Needs more but not deleted. Martin Morin (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)