Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toronto attack

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. – Joe (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto attack

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

Most of the articles in this list don't really fit, being battles and foiled plots, none of which were known as "Toronto attack". Before its expansion by 70.51.203.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), it was a redirect to Toronto van attack. I'd suggest either restoring that or redirecting to the Toronto Attack hockey team. ansh 666 22:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with maintaining it as a WP:TWODAB, but certainly not including the other stuff. ansh 666 22:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Toronto Attack is a defunct, Junior ice hockey youth team that existed for only 5 years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I certainly see it as valid to question whether anybody would ever look for a foiled attack plot by searching on the phrase "Toronto attack", but it's very much not clear that the pathetic incel twit owns the title "Toronto attack" — York and Montgomery's Tavern and Danzig Street and the hockey team certainly all have valid and reliably sourceable claims to that name, and it's WP:RECENTISM to suggest that the most recent one trumps all the others. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except there's zero evidence that any of them have ever been called "Toronto attack" (the city wasn't even called Toronto during the Revolutionary War). If, as you say, they are reliably sourceable, then where are the sources? If anything, the hockey team and the recent attack are both valid, but then, per WP:TWODABS, Toronto van attack is clearly the primary topic. ansh 666 07:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is it clearly the primary topic over a hockey team whose only difference is the capitalization of a single letter? Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you click through the "find sources" links above? None of them mention the hockey team at all. The closest thing that provides guidance here is WP:DIFFCAPS, and that just says,The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for. ansh 666 19:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google search results can be, and often are, skewed by WP:RECENTISM. The reality of the situation, however, is that if "Toronto attack" with a lowercase a is privileged as a redirect to the van incident over the hockey team, with no other way to distinguish it from the hockey team's "Toronto Attack" with a capital A besides loading the pages to find out which is which, then anybody typing "Toronto attack" into the search bar has an exactly 50-50 chance of landing at the wrong topic for what they were actually looking for. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Toronto Attack per nom. It's a wild agglomeration of battles, plots and a shooting(?) that don't fit under this umbrella. Conflicts in and for Toronto aren't referred to specifically as "Toronto attack"s. Imagine all the entries there'd be for a New York City attack if we were so loose with the criteria. (Well, what do you know. The NYC title redirects to List of terrorist incidents in New York City. I don't know that I agree with that, but at least it has a narrow focus.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toronto Attack per nom. The title is far too ambiguous to be useful and since the references don't refer to any of the terror incidents as "Toronto attack" (as ansh says above) then it's somewhat synthetic for us to refer to them as such. A Train^talk 12:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I pretty much agree with Bearcat.Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Toronto Attack. My biggest concern is "Toronto attack" is far too ambiguous to be useful or entirely accurate. It also is a bit too synthy to include events that are not even described in sources as "attacks".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support to keep this on the condition that the title be changed to "Attack on Toronto". Since searches actuality refer to the events listed as such, it is far less synthy and dependent on OR.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a useful search term, and very useful disambig. Searching: Toronto attack, is just the sort of thing real people do when they want to check what year the United States sent an army to conquer Toronto; or some detail about a foiled terrorist attack (but have no idea what year or what to call the specific plot.) Redirecting this term to a defunct schoolboy hockey team is dysfunctional.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Keep - the whole point of Wikipedia is to make information accessible. This is a very useful disambiguation page. Editors should not need reminding that the general public is not very good at structuring searches. This disambiguation page helps less sophisticated users (i.e., most people) find what they are looking for.XavierItzm (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't think Toronto Attack or Toronto van attack are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, so a DAB page makes sense. Having that page be a "list of attacks and battles in Toronto" is somewhat problematic; if none of them are referred to as "Toronto attack" it may be a WP:TWODAB situation, where a hat-note on the redirect target is enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery's Tavern is very widely referred to at the "attack on Toronto" as is the American attempt to capture the city during the War of 1812, even though the city was still called York at that time. This familiar phrasing is why I think attack Toronto is a useful disambig, and "attack Toronto" does get hits [1], [2], [3], althoug "attack on Toronto" is more common [4], [5], E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's great but this page's title is specifically "Toronto attack", not "attack Toronto" or "attack on Toronto". ansh 666 03:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since Toronto attack can mean different things, the disambiguation page is in place. gidonb (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not a valid disambiguation page. Only one of these entries even qualifies as a WP:partial title match. Does "Britain attack" bring to mind the Battle of Britain or "Hawaii attack" the Attack on Pearl Harbor? It's simply way too generic a phrase. Also, since when is a plot an attack? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the entries more closely:

two are for York, Toronto's predecessor
three are foiled plots, non-attacks
two are in Category:Crime in Toronto; are all such crimes to be included? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of the entries might need culling, but the basic concept is sound. For many of the entries, typing toronto attack into a search box seems like a perfectly reasonable thing a user might do. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2018 (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.