This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk 00:39, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. Created only by Statistics Canada for census purposes, little to no local knowledge of census divisions. List of attractions, etc, can easily be integrated into the Calgary or surrounding towns articles. Kirjtc2 03:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not too interesting, but nonetheless it exists, it's probably going to be around for a long time, it's probably going to be referred to now and again, and it's something somebody may need to look up. Might be a candidate for a merge, though. Gzuckier 05:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is still being worked on and is part of lager a series. (template:alberta)Series does not yet contain other articles, but I bet it soon will. May be up for a merge, but Alberta and Calgary are large enough already that they don't need to be filled with a bunch of statistical data. Zhatt 05:37, July 15, 2005

Keep. Equivelant to a county in the U.S. Please do not waste our times! -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can cut out the attitude, it isn't very becoming. This article should be renamed Greater Calgary Area, and merged with the Calgary Regional Partnership article. Nuff said. Snickerdo 06:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually not equivalent to counties. Alberta has counties that StatsCan counts as CSDs. This would be like an article on a school district. Kirjtc2 06:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is like a U.S. county, in terms of it being the level below the province. It has no governance however, but is a statistical region. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point. Statistical regions aren't really all that notable. Nobody's going to go to wikipedia to look up what attractions or protected areas are in "Division No. 6". At most I can see a small article with the population and some other stats, but this page is made out to look like a major well-known government district. Kirjtc2 06:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's only fair that Alberta's Census divisions get the same treatment as Quebec's or Ontario's -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why? People in Ontario and Quebec know their counties/MRCs/etc. They have a cultural meaning there. People in Alberta do not know their census divisions. There is NO cultural meaning. Please stop creating useless articles on things only census nuts know about. Kirjtc2 17:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know very many people familiar with either system really. It just is us census nuts who do. Again, I point you to my Alaska Boroughs example. Clearly census entities are worthy of articles, like it or not. Even the Province of Alberta Statistics Division uses CD's. The Manitoba federation of Municipalities even gave their census divisions names for organizing purposes. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Province of Alberta *Statistics* Division. Basically a provincial version of StatsCan. And seeing your updates to the Census division article, does this mean all the health regions, school districts, etc are going to get articles on here? Kirjtc2 22:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some school districts have articles, check out Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless there is evidence that census divisions have significant cultural meaning to the average Canadian who is not a census administrator. After looking over the census division article, it does seem like this is a logical way to break Canadian provinces down locally, so I'm changing to keep. Dcarrano 08:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Why? We have articles on the Census Boroughs of Alaska, and they pretty much serve the same purpose! -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Youngamerican 13:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep logical way of breaking down articles that would otherwise probably become too massive Sam Vimes 16:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep please it seems notable to me Yuckfoo!~

Keep notable --Simon.Pole 00:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Revolución 02:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep real place, real community of interest, real trees, real things. Really. Grutness...wha? 04:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Do people in Calgary even know what Division No. 6 is, let alone people outside of the city? Rename the article Greater Calgary or something, as that would make a lot more sense. Snickerdo 06:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have an article on the Greater Calgary Area- which has entirely different boundaries. Besides, how many Torontonians can say what census division they live in? They would give you a blank stare, but that is no reason to delete our article on Toronto. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, the average person in the Greater Toronto Area knows what county/region they live in, and the names are used on a day-to-day basis. 'York Region' 'Durham Region' 'Peel Region' etc are as much a norm in day-to-day conversation as they are a part of Ontario Culture. Police forces, school boards, municipal services, etc are named after these census divisions. The same cannot be said for people in Alberta - Do the Division No. 6 Regional Police exist? How about the Division No. 6 District School board? Or the Division No. 6 Transit Comission? The content of the article itself are fine, but this article needs a different name and/or to be merged with one of the other Calgary articles. The only people with blank stares are the people reading this article and wondering what the hell it is talking about, and I think your zealous attitude towards this article needs to be adjusted. Rational comments are acceptable, but going on a tagent and making wild and false claims to justify your cause is, well, rather stupid. Snickerdo 08:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those things you listed off don't exist because, well, Div. 6 is not as dense as other census divisions. So what's your point? -Tyson2k
      • What justifies notablity is not whether everyone knows about it anyways. The fact is, it's a place, and places exist- and therefore should have an article. It's not an insignifigant place either- it has over 1,000,000 people. Whether or not people have heard of it is not the issue. Wikipedia is not a polling firm. The fact is, StatsCan says it exists- so it does. Why dont we just delete all the Census Boroughs in Alaska while we're at it? They aren't notable either by your definition. -- Earl Andrew - talk 09:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a place as much as an entity created by StatsCan. Here in New Brunswick the province draws its school district boundaries irrespective to anything else, and they're numbered too. Are you going to say we should have articles for all 18 school districts, with a list of attractions and parks? If you're going to list attractions, MPs, highways in this article, then I suggest you add a complete list of them nationwide to Demographics of Canada. It would serve the same purpose. Kirjtc2 16:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Alaskan Census Borough pages don't contain any information beyond the simple census data. You are trying to make this article into some grand central source for everything around Calgary. You could argue about keeping this page about simple census data, but having information such as highways, MPs, MLAs, attractions, etc goes well beyond the whole point of the census area to begin with. This page MUST be altered and/or moved to a page more fitting for the data it contains. End of story. Snickerdo 10:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not just a statistical division, it's a geographical division as well. The Alaskan boroughs all have information on their geography. There may not be lists of highways and parks, but I guaruntee if someone were to add them, no one would fight over it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • How is it a geographical division? Who outside of stats bureaus uses this? As I've been trying to say, it might be gread for disseminating data, but it has zero cultural significance. Kirjtc2 05:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I never said it was a cultural division, but how is not a geographic division? It has borders, and is shown on various maps of geography. Again, look at the Alaskan boroughs. They all have geography sections. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Zhatt's reasoning. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also, before anyone makes any sudden judgements, I would first take a look at the various Alaskan Census Borough articles. A list of them is available in the List of Alaska borough and census area name etymologies article. Earl seems quick to point out the notability of these articles, but at the same time these articles contain nothing more than simple census data. Listing attractions, MPs, MLAs, highways, etc is beyond the scope of a simple 'census' article, regardless of what Earl would have you believe. What's next, a Wikipedia article for every single census tract that StatsCan has created for every single CMA? If this article is kept in its current form, I propose that Earl be forced to create an article for every single census tract within the Calgary CMA, and update it and defend it with the same zeal as he does this particular article - after all, if we're making articles for un-named census areas that serve no purpose other than gathering statistical data, we may as well do the same for individual community tracts! Otherwise, I think it's time for a merger and a move. Snickerdo 10:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I am sorry if information is such a bad thing for an encyclopedia. Heaven forbid there be information in an encylopedia! And, it is not wiki convention to force its users to do anything. Census Tracts aren't something I think would pass the notablity test. (I have no American examples to justify ;-) ) -- Earl Andrew - talk 10:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Information is great, but information that can't be used for practical purposes is almost as bad as no information at all. This is the whole reason why we're having this debate. As for census tracts, I'm sure the census tract containing Queen's Park or Parliament Hill would pass the notability test - but is it practical? I'd just as equally argue the deletion of those articles just as much as this one. Snickerdo 10:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite: Since Alberta census divisions are not based on real-world municipal organization, the article is definitely needed, but it should be confined to things related to the census. A section like "Attractions", for example, should appear under counties or whatever that people in Alberta would actually know (unless there's an actual "Division No. 6 Tourism Association"). Peter Grey 22:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously. Fawcett5 23:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peter Grey's reasoning. Stick to the raison d'etre of "Division No. 6" (eg. emphasize census data) plus a little info to help a reader understand where/what is being discussed. - maclean25 06:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These divisions are not all relevant, but some such as this one (see also, the Greater Vancouver Regional District) are actually more important. In the case of Div. 6, it essentially represents an area that corresponds to Calgary's metropolitan area, but is distinct from its censused CMA. This is not unlike the GVRD. Alberta just happens to number these divisions instead of name them as is the case in BC. -Tyson2k
  • Actually, that's not quite the case. There's a difference between the Calgary Regional Partnership and the numbered census divison. It's also interesting to note that the Greater Toronto Area is spread out over at least five seperate census divisions, and the Golden Horseshoe is spread out over even more. Snickerdo 06:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well... you're right, the CRP is completely different. It is also a corporation and not a census boundary. However, even though they do not complettely match, Div. 6 is the basis for Calgary's StatsCan CMA (same as the GTA and the GVRD). It is also the basis for the boudaries of the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor and the Calgary Health Region, which are also StatsCan divisions. So, you're right, Div. 6 does not equal Calgary's metropolitan area, however, as a boundary, it is no less relevant that any of the other afformentioned regions. -Tyson2k
      • The Greater Toronto Area and the Toronto CMA are entirly different things. For example, Oshawa is in its own CMA, while still considered part of the GTA. Just the same, Orangeville is part of the CMA, but not considered part of the GTA, as it is not within Halton, Peel, York, Durham or the city of Toronto itself. The difference here is that each one of those regions is its own census division, has a cultural tie to the region around it, and each one serves more of a purpose than simply keeping track of StatsCan data.
• OK, how's this: the article stays, but only census statistics and other relevant data is included. No lists of MLAs, parks or museums. Good enough? :) Kirjtc2 05:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think everyone here can agree on that. The MPs/MLAs/parks/etc should be put into the individual regional and municipal articles. Snickerdo 06:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you remove those from the Div. 6 article then you MUST be consistent and remove them from the other census division articles where they exist (such as Division No. 11, Alberta). Then perhaps some of them should be added to the Calgary Regional Partnership article. -Tyson2k
      • You seem to forget that in other provinces, a census division is used for more than book-keeping purposes. In Ontario, they follow the same boundries as the counties, regions and districts, which are actual legal entities on their own. Snickerdo 19:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I dont agree on that at all. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We already know you don't agree. Your attitude during the course of this entire debate has shown that you aren't open to any discussion on this matter. That is unfortunate. Snickerdo 19:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earl, even the Ontario census division articles don't generally list politicians and attractions and such; they simply list the cities and towns within those divisions. A few do have "attractions" lists, but those should really be listed mainly in the individual towns and cities. The articles for Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and Greater Sudbury are a different matter entirely from most census division articles, because those census divisions are actually single united cities, and thus their articles simultaneously function as city articles; most Ontario census divisions don't work that way. So the Alberta census divisions, which also don't work that way, have to be treated less like Toronto and more like Frontenac County. Bearcat 17:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gotten to them all you know. I'm starting with the more populated ones, like this one, and Peel, and York, etc and working my way down the list :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to support keeping this; whether it's common knowledge or not, it is a region with definable boundaries which serves an important purpose that fits within the definition of what Wikipedia is supposed to cover. Bearcat 17:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think what's unfortunate here is that Alberta has chosen to number its census divisions. Snickerdo is right that many Calgarians do not know what Div. 6 is while most Ontarians know the "Peel Region" and many Vancouverites know the "GVRD". HOWEVER, even though names like Peel Region and GVRD make much more sense than Division No. 6, they are NO different. They mean exactly the same thing to StatsCan. All census divisions in BC are "Something Regional District", most census divisions in Ontario are "Something Region" (GTA is not quite the same thing) and all census divions in Alberta are "Division No. #". It's not very descriptive, and so nobody pays much attention to it. However, since it means exactly the same thing as something like the Greater Vancouver Regional District, then it should stay in Wikipedia for exactly the same reasons. Modify the article if necessary, but I have voted to keep it. -Tyson2k

I agree completely, and I do believe you are an Albertan as well? -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am. -Tyson2k

The Greater Toronto Area is not a census division. It's actually a combo of the CMA and the regions surrounding Toronto. It doesn't even exist as a legal entity, and is rather used as a rough reference to the areas surrounding Toronto by various businesses, tourist groups and chambers of commerce. The whole debate here is the fact that Alberta's "Census Divisions" exist for no reason beyond book-keeping purposes. In Ontario and British Columbia, the census divisons also follow legal municipal boundries, and have a cultural link to the community. Sorry Earl, but writing an article is not going to suddenly make "District 6" a part of the Calgary culture. Snickerdo 19:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The GTA is a lot like the CRP. Agreed... it is not a legal division. I don't believe I ever made that case. However, Div. 6 DOES follow legal municipal boundaries like true census divisions in Ontario and BC do. Why do you think they don't? Look at the northern boundary of the municipality of Rockeyview and Div.6.... they are THE SAME. Furthermore, I would say that there is very little cultural similarity between communities in the GVRD (not unlike Div. 6). I have lived in both Calgary and Vancouver and can tell you that CULTURALLY Aldergrove is no more like Vancouver than Airdrie is like Calgary. The way of life, the ethnic/racial composition, and the socioeconomics of the cities of the GVRD are very different. I am not going to list off stats, but there is plenty of information at StatsCan if you need a source. -Tyson2k

You totally missed my point. The individual census divisions of Ontario are actual legal entities onto themselves. Even the Greater Vancouver Regional District is exactly that - it is a regional municipality, and even has an upper-tier government. What government does District 6 have? Is there a 'District 6 Health and Welfare Department' ? Is there a 'District 6 Regional Police Service' ? District 6 has ZERO impact on anyone in the area, nadda, zip. GRVD and the various Regions and Counties, however, play a significant impact on a BC and Ontarian's day-to-day lives. Hell, I live off of Niagara Regional Road 83. Could you please show me where Alberta Census Division Number 6 Road 83 is? It's a census article, nothing more. Snickerdo 01:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Internal political divisions in eastern Canada operate completely differentely than those in western Canada. The same is true for counties and municipalities in the west. They have very little political or legal power. No division in western Canada greater than that of the municipality has its own police force for example. BC's system is identical to Alberta's. The GVRD does operate a parks network and a transit system, but only by virtue of the fact that it has been incorporated and follows the StatsCan-determined boundaries of Greater Vancouver (it is the same situation that would arise if the boundaries of the CRP or the Calgary CMA were to correspond exactly to that of Div. 6, which they don't). You will not find the same in the BC division of the Caribou Regional District for instance. And the same is true everywhere in western Canada whereby provinces are governed almost exclusively by the provincial government without internal divisions. What do governance and political structure have to with whether or not this article should be kept anyway? Police forces, transit systems, etc, are a direct reflection of an area's government or lack thereof. Boundaries and divisions are no less valid in their absence. The boundaries of Div. 6 correspond exactly to the legal boundaries of the municipalities contained within it. Thus, it is a legitimate division which happens to be one unit of magnitude larger than the municipality and one unit smaller than the province itself... just like the GVRD. -Tyson2k

I actually have talked to Albertans. None of them had ever heard of Division 6. Kirjtc2 21:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I demand sources! ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear keep. Census divisions are important and encyclopedic. Talk of what belongs on such pages belong on talk pages. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't see a purpose for this article other than duplicating StatsCan data. --NormanEinstein 00:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I live in Calgary and have heard of and seen maps of the census divisions. --Cloveious 00:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as long it's kept up-to-date. A map showing the names of the member municipalities would make the article quite useful. It's impractical to fit the names and borders of every community on a provincial map, but might be possible on a Division map. It lets people learn about Alberta, one piece at a time. Ideally people should be start at the Alberta page, work (drill) down to the division level (with a map showing each), then go down to an individual municipality. Divisions give a nice middle step, even with no legal signficance. --rob 09:39, 22 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.