Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confusion corner

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable neologism. One unreliable source. Graymornings_(talk) 07:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not a neologism, the term has been around for a long time, see [1]. There are now 3 references on the page. And I'm sure many shining examples of Wikipedia articles today started out with zero references. Do a google search for confusion corner and nearly all of the results are for the corner in Winnipeg. You'll also see people looking for a roommate and referring to the distance of their place to confusion corner[2], so it is used as a geographic reference point in Winnipeg. People make pins[3] and tshirts of the confusion corner sign[4], an advertising firm uses the confusion corner as a symbol in a poster for itself[5]; it is part of the identity of Winnipeg. As for notability there are many longstanding articles about streets, roads, and routes in Winnipeg, and this one is as notable as they are, so if this goes then it would be the start of a new policy and there should be a purge of a large number of long standing articles. Suoerh3 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't doubt that Confusion corner is a local nickname for a intersection in Winnipeg. But we need some secondary sources to establish that the intersection and/or the name is notable, and a personal homepage of a university employee is not considered a reliable source on wikipedia. I am willing to reconsider if reliable sources are found - personally (i.e., wikipedia policies aside) I appreciate the quirkiness of the subject and the name and would like to see such a page retained if possible. Abecedare (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2009 (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.