Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoHo

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. Proto::► 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LoHo

Delete WP:N/WP:NEO - Deals with a proposed name for a neighborhood that has not become widely used except as novelty or in reference to its namesake realty firm. None of the sources given has verified that LoHo is anything more than a marketing effort by a realty firm or that the name has taken hold as the name of a neighborhood. Mosmof 20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations

(You only get to ~~give one vote~~ make one recommendation with keep, delete, or comment in bold. Do not spam this section.)

Keep This attempt is unfounded, and there are references to prove its worthiness. Clearly from the exhaustive attempts by User:MosMof, this is a contentious topic, but I'd ask what for, and why? There are enough people who do call it LoHo ever since the real estate brokers renewed the name in 1996, that LoHo Studios had been using all along. The references do not even mention a realtor and in fact, refer to it as a location in NY. Juda S. Engelmayer 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Juda Engelmayer's sister works at Loho Realty

Comment - Quoting from the article itself: LoHo is one proposed name of a neighborhood in the New York City... It does not matter what this article is called. The key question is if LoHo is different from the Lower East Side. Does it have a different area or does it include all of LES? Does it have a different ethnic mix as its population?

keep These designations keep coming, and they almost always stay. I suppose it indicates something about NYC that the inhabitants are always trying to re-create it as a series of more and more little villages each characterized a little differently. (cf.Jane Jacobs) If it's already being used, it will be used more. And there are sources. Qy are real estate ads RS? (smile)DGG 07:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't break AFD discussions into sections and include tricky sections like references. THey're hard enough to keep in order as it is. --Dhartung | Talk 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect to Lower East Side, Manhattan. As this is at best just an alternate name for the LES that has indisputably less currency and usage than "Lower East Side", it's a subordinate and largely duplicative topic. At most, mention it in the LES article. Postdlf 20:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the article says, it's only a proposed name. It's a new term that's not widely acknowledged by reputable sources. I live on the LES and I've yet to see or hear it except in relation to the eponymous real estate brokers, and it basically is the present day Lower East Side. We can always start an article when it's more notable - there's no rush. Ytny 12:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Loho is a neologism coined by a real estate company of the same name. They have a single propietary interest in the formerly limited equity co-ops south of Delancey, east of Essex. I live in one of them. I've never heard the neighborhood called "Loho" by anyone, not a soul, not even the agents who work for the company. Residents of the neighborhood uniformly refer to it as the Lower East Side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.62.161 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 January 2007

Delete (merge/redirect) It's just another name for a section that is generally accepted by even many of its residents to be the Lower East Side. This page should only exist as a redirect, with any unique information merged into the LES article. -- Lampbane 16:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge/Redirect There is insufficient distinction of LoHo from the entirety of Lower East Side, as it is defined today. This moniker should, at most, be mentioned briefly in the Lower East Side article. --Jco7 18:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (merge/redirect) The "LoHo" term is not in widespread use outside of mentions by LoHo Realty and its PR and publishing associates involved in discussion here. There is a place for a passing reference to "LoHo" in the LES entry as an attempted rebranding but not as a standalone entry. Rlwebb 22:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant astroturfing. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not inherently averse to having godawful broker-bestowed renamings of neighborhoods in Wikipedia -- we have Nolita, after all -- but they should be used by more than one broker, and they should have at least some public recognition. This fits neither premise. I don't even think it deserves a redirect. --Polonius 16:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term "LoHo" is in the culture, and as such should be noted here. The very discussion on this page suggests there is much political opposition to the use of the term and that, in itself, already justifies not censoring it. The novelty or longevity in this instance is immaterial, but it has been shown that "LoHo" is used in the name of more than one area business for more than a decade. -- [[[User:Yyanover|Yyanover]] 11:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)YYanover]]

Delete This article would do more towards legitimizing a promotional neighborhood renaming than any of the quoted references. Let unfortunate real estate promotional efforts fizzle. Maybe, mention it as a sidenote on the LES page. DarwinPeacock 20:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Clarification

In a NY Times article, the person who claims to have coined the name admits that it's branding for his firm, the name is intended to be synonymous with the Lower East Side, Manhattan, and he does not expect the term to replace LES. Meanwhile, a NY Daily News article indicates the name is

The sources cited does not show that the term is a widely accepted neologism.

* The The New York Observer article places the name in quotes, indicating that it is not an accepted name.

* LoHo10002 appears to be sponsored or owned by the namesake realty firm.

* The Miami Herald article and the KC Star article are the same article, and only mentions the name in passing. (That is all it will ever be, in passing, as a casual reference to an accepted norm)Juda S. Engelmayer 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Drug Chain News article also only mentions the name in passing (But by Duane Reade's intenral RE divisionm which we can presume knows their neighborhoods for new store possibilitiesJuda S. Engelmayer 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)), and it is unclear how reliable it is when it comes to neighborhood designations.[reply]

* A Forward article Mentions one landlord (who happens to own one of the trendiest buildings downtown Juda S. Engelmayer 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)), who calls the neighborhood Loho.[reply]

While the term might become more accepted in the future, it seems that reputable, local media outlets have not accepted it as such. The way the article reads almost like a real estate brochure, and the way the article starter has included a link to "LoHo" in every possible article, sometimes hiding the link under "Lower East Side", it seems at best, premature neologism, and at worst, spam. Mosmof 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The point is not whether it has a different ethic mix (but it does, as it is a younger, more affluent population than that of the whole Lower East Side which spans Alphabet City all the way down and includes parts of China Town and Loisaida. LoHo is within LES, don't lose site of that) or that you can point to the person who began using it; Loho studios did years ago, than Loho Realty. It is the the demographic and affluence shift that has occurred as a result of the high-yield home prices, especially when compared to that of the Lower East Side as a whole, which consists mostly of City projects and low income housing facilities, has taken the name LoHo to mean the newer, trendier neighborhood, and not the old-style pushcart/peddler Lower East Side. Please understand the difference. Lower East Side is a much bigger picture, LoHo is smaller and more defined by its people, trends, lifestyle, nightlife, expensive homes, condos and hotels, and expensive boutiques. Juda S. Engelmayer 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the NYT article linked above:

"..But I'm not looking to rename the Lower East Side; I want it to be an 'also known as.'"

This suggests that Mr. Goldman means for LoHo to be interchangeable with Lower East Side.

Modern day boundaries of LES are often debated, but major media outlets generally limit it to the area between Houston and Canal, and exclude EV and Loisaida/Alphabet City from LES. And by that definition, LoHo is essentially LES.

But even if we do decide it's a separate neighborhood, I believe the article fails on WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms. Mosmof 23:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "but major media outlets generally limit.." Why not do a news search for gunshots, violence, crime in various Alphabet City/Loisaida areas, and see that Lower East Side applies to everything below 14th Street and above the financial/City Hall region. Without fail, the Lower East Side is a broad area in Manhattan that is often painted just as broadly.Juda S. Engelmayer 03:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The entire point here is that it not an issue of what Goldman wants or not, it's out there. Goldman at this point is irrelevant to the issue - he was once, but not anymore. This sounds like a personal issue, leave that part alone. On the merits, LoHo is commonly used by the newcomers and the younger long-timers, and it will become even more within a short time.Juda S. Engelmayer 23:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response First off, WP:AGF. Second, you're misunderstanding my point. I have nothing against Goldman. The reason I cite that article is because it's one of the few reliable media articles that deal with, and actually define LoHo, and it seems to say that it falls short of being an actual neighborhood name. All the other articles fail to meet WP:RS and/or WP:NEO guidelines. We don't have any reliable media source that defines LoHo as anything more than an occasionally used neologism. Mosmof 00:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can quote for you 1000 articles that refer to the neighborhood as LoHo; what you are doing is trying to back Wiki into a corner by saying that if one or more are not full features on the name LoHo, you won't buy it. The fact is that people, people from all over, near and far alike, are using the name LoHo. The fact that media refer to it, trendy nightspots and shops refer to it, etc,. says that it is beyond a whim or a novelty - and 1000 articles like this will be unable to satisfy anyone bent against the new moniker. The fact that you care so much about Wikipedia's integrity that you want this article to reflect a comfortable tone is commendable; that you chose Loho as your first and only target as the reason Wikipedia is not there yet, is, perhaps, a bit of a tell (as we say in poker). I just hope that the judges see rationale above all, and I appreciate the debateJuda S. Engelmayer 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - In short, yes, I'd take one NYT feature trumps 1000 articles. I've linked to WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms several times already, but here's the relevant part:

Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy).

Please stop worrying about my motivations (again, WP:AGF) and just find a reliable source that verifies its notability. Mosmof 08:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki asks for reliable non-self originated sources. It also tends to not like blogs. Yet, many of the pieces are bona-fide news reports from established media, and the blogs are either popular media-like spots, as is the New York Observer Real Estate blog, written by real reporters, and others using the name LoHo in various references to the area in question have been written years prior to this debate, prior to the Wiki LoHo entry being created. These are all pickups from what has become a popularized name over the past 10 years, not recent plants to support my or anyone else's theory.Juda S. Engelmayer 16:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, on the one hand, this is but one of many part-marketing, part-humorous neighborhood names that spring up, often as a result of gentrification. Will it pass the 100 year test? Hard to tell. SoHo took about 20 years to get established. On the other hand, I've heard this term and I haven't lived in NYC for 20 years. NoHo seems to have become accepted, without supplanting the larger Greenwich Village of which it's a part, not the least through the official designation of a "NoHo Historic District". Loisaida was still a pretty new, jocular term when I lived out there, again, without supplanting or being a renaming of Lower East Side. I'm willing to consider it a "sub-neighborhood" if that's clear. My take on sources is that it's just barely there. There was a whole NYT article about the neighborhood and its designation. In any case, I don't think there's any case for labeling it as something limited to the one real estate firm. In the 90s, there may have been. --Dhartung | Talk 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nicely put.Juda S. Engelmayer 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many citations that demonstrate that, if nothing else, the moniker is well beyond a single person, and used by people and parties of all sorts, even if it is not loved or used by all - yet. See the LoHo site and its references Juda S. Engelmayer 04:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment It's worth noting that while neighborhood designations may stay and might even get a few mass media mentions, they don't always reach the level of "true" (for the lack of a better word) neighborhood names a la Alphabet City. Many often stay the way of SoHell ("South of Hell's Kitchen" for the lower Midtown West area below Port Authority), which has been around for a while and even got a NY magazine profile, but has mostly stayed at the word of mouth level, like so many microhoods that pop up on sites like Curbed.com ever so often. So I'm not sure "it'll stick around" is enough to make a case, which is why I think WP:NEO is a good test - widely used isn't necessarily notable. Mosmof 08:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Names are a personal and sensitive thing, which is why anyone with half a brain would stay away from the topic. So let me say this...

The Lower East Side stretched 100 years ago from 14th Street all the way to the water and included Chinatown, too. But within that area there were always neighborhoods (Chinatown & Corlear’s Hook come to mind). Those neighborhoods were named by their residents to determine a more precise location than a 2 by 3 mile area, and, believe it or not, for commercial reasons. Like the Orchard Street area.

SoHo, East Village (a total fabrication) and NoHo (likewise) have been there before. I believe LoHo is catching flack mostly for being latest to get rich off of real estate values in the city. It smacks of old money scorning the new, even if the person attacking it is a pauper.

Also, the East Village tag has been the flag of uninhibited gentrification, which utilized frontal violence to protect property values – is that a valued name for you? Think the Koch troops doing the Gestapo thing in Tompkins Park – that's what East Village brings to my mind. In comparison, what's the crime of LoHo? A pun on real estate history? An attempt to imbue an immigrants' neighborhood with some of the shine of the arts and hipness of SoHo? User:Yyanover 03:34, 18 January 2007

As a young person who spends a lot of time in the Lower East Side, I have not once heard anyone use the name LoHo in reference to the neighborhood. Call it an urban myth, I call it a real estate plan to attach a neighborhood name to its company. It's no secret that the man arguing to keep the name is a PR person.--Josef

Funny how Josef's only other entry is the inclusion of a reference to an organization that has been vocal critics of a name change; and yes, my living comes from PR, but A) I don't hide that, it's in my bio, and more importantly, b)I am a Lower East Sider with a tad more experience in the neighborhood that some of of the other writers here. My family business, by the way, is known for being a "Lower East Side" tourist spot and part of its rich history, and not LoHo, so this argument can even be construed as counter productive - as far a self interest is concerned.Juda S. Engelmayer 17:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this on the Observer. Its seems that while Mr. Engelmayer is open about his working in PR, he isn't being open about LoHo Realty being a client at hi PR company ( http://www.5wpr.com/Our_Clients/Index.cfm ). (He's neither a 5W Client or a personal one Juda S. Engelmayer 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC))With that in mind, it seems a bit disengenous to represent the entry as fact when the fact is it's part of a marketing campaign. I don't fault people for wanting to build up areas. But the Lower East Side- which is finally seeing its day again - is one of NYC's last remaining true-neighborhoods. NYC is at enough risk of erasing its past due to real estate development; Creating (or trying to brand ) a neighborhood from one that already possesses a rich identity is simply self-serving (to say the least) and pays no mind to the people who have spend years building it. I say delete the entry.Jilk96 19:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AfD is not a vote. Why does this discussion have a "Votes" section? --Pak21 10:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the name of the section to "Recommendations". -- Petri Krohn 11:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So, what happens if I stumble upon the term "LoHo" as a synonym for LES and wonder how the moniker came to be? My first instinct is to turn to Wikipedia. Imagine my dismay upon discovering that once again, some Wikipedia administrator decided this information (reliably sourced though it is) wasn't worth knowing, obstructing--for the n millionth time in this site's existence--learning, knowledge, and the spread of information. I won't be surprised, though. Most of you administrators are petty hypocrites. 66.150.69.10 22:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this should be one short paragraph in the Lower East Side entry, not its own separate entry.

Redirect to Lower East Side, add something there about the parasites at LoHo realty, etc. and their efforts to gentrify the LES --Tothebarricades 00:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Delete it as its own article. I second the redirect suggestion. A name doesn't deserve its own article. Michaelfs 03:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This should be deleted. The term LoHo is a marketing ploy. Even DUMBO can make a better claim than LoHo. It would be as if someone asked their friend to put a Wikipedia entry in referring to them by some sort of nickname. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.188.141.152 (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: The East Village was a 1970's invention by real estate brokers who were thugs to boot. Everything you know about cruel gentrification, complete with sending riot police after squatters, happened on the sacred East Village. But no one challenges this made up name because it's been there almost 40 years. To sanctify the evil EV while calling LoHo "parasites" is to be entirely devoid of a notion of history. A name is out there as part of the culture. You want to censor the culture? Who gave you the right? [User Yyanover]

I think both sides of the debate are missing the issue - whether LoHo is "real" or not is inconsequential. The real question is whether it passes Wikipedia's tests for notability (I've already mentioned WP:NEO here and in the talk page). You're right, no one challenges "East Village" because it's been around for 40 years (since the mid-60s, actually). And because it's been around for 40 years, there are reliable sources that verify its existence and its boundaries, and define it as a proper neighborhood. More to the point, East Village managed to gain notability without the benefit of a Wikipedia article - we can only see if LoHo can do the same. Mosmof 12:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Captain Kirk Are you sure we want to apply the Federation's Prime Directive in covering sociological phenomena? Anything that is being discussed here has been altered by the mere process of its discussion. Countless humanoids with pointy ears have tried in vain to follow in the footsteps of your purist approach, only to realize too late that applying the Prime Directive is just one more way of violating it. Wikipedia can afford to record the culture as it's being forged around us, including the changes induced by Wikipedia. If you want to know things 40 years after the fact, buy a Britanica. [YYanover]

The ad hominem aside, you're missing my point - I'm not saying wait 40 years. In fact, if Wikipedia were around 40 years ago, East Village would have had its own article then because the neighborhood had already received substantial mass media coverage. NoLIta, which we are led to believe isn't that much older than the LoHo name, has managed to gain traction that LoHo hasn't come close to. So no, you don't have to worry about Wikipedia falling into irrelevance because of it silly little rules.

That aside, wouldn't it be ethical for you to at least disclose that you are the editor of LoHo10002.com and publisher of Grand Street News, and have a business relationship with Jacob Goldberg and LoHo Realty? Mosmof 12:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegation is 100% untrue. But, as you represent the Lower East Side BID that has been opposed to any renaming for so long... Oh, but we can't know for sure, because some of us are open, while others lurk in anonymity. The joke of your tone and conspiracy theories, whether Wikipedia deletes it or not, has everything to do with whether the administrators feel LoHo is an established term, and nothing to do with its origins and the neighborhood politics.

Sad to say, most of the posts against LoHo, indicate more of a position against the proprietor and how his actions vis à vi gentrification and promotion over the years have affected the neighborhood. The fact that the name LoHo is used, primarily the new people and the younger people, is what will count in the end, and not the nastiness that just about all of those neighborhood people who have had their say here have spewed.

Whether the neighborhood is now more expensive, less Jewish, more gentrified and all, has nothing to do with whether the term is in play, and frankly, has little to do with the proprietor in question – he was in the right place at the right time 10 years ago – anyone else who might have stepped in instead of him would have sold millions worth of apartments too, and we’d be in the same argument – just maybe a different name/term. Get real people – separate your emotions from facts and try to have a civil conversation – that is what is lacking, and that is the traditional Lower East Side. Move on. Juda S. Engelmayer 14:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which allegation is untrue? That Yori Yanover is the editor of LoHo Realty's LoHo10002.com? Or that East Village received media coverage in the 60s? Or that the name NoLIta has firmly established itself? If any of that is true, I'll retract the "allegation".

Pointing out an apparent conflict of interest is not a conspiracy theory - it's more than relevant to the argument if you or Yori have, or at one point had, a professional relationship with Goldman and LoHo Realty, since one of the questions here is whether the real estate company is engaging in astroturfing. It doesn't discount your argument, but it's at least worth considering, and it actually would help your argument if you were completely transparent about your relationship with the realtors.

(FWIW, I am a 20-something resident of the Lower East Side who is not affiliated with the Lower East Side BID, so I unfortunately have no sexy details to disclose)

I also don't need a lecture on civility from someone who has refused to assume good faith from the very start. Like I said before, stop worrying about me or my motivations, and for once, address whether the article meets Wikipedia's standards. Mosmof 14:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telling me to Assume Good faith while you make and have been making blatant remarks about astroturfing from the start is the pot calling the kettle black. Don't you think?

I have lived on the Lower East considerably longer than Jacob, have been on the Community Board, local Coop Board , Synagogue Board, and have been actively involved in local and neighborhood politics for more than 20 years. I have a business there, raise my kids there and have been actively involved in trying to build the community up. So, to assume that I have a professional relationship with Jacob and use that assumption as your basis for my activism is as much a load of garbage as is your seeking to make Wikipedia the perfect place for you and the world - but I guess it sounds good to write it and see if it sticks.

I have loads of neighborhood credentials that go deeper and further than any broker here can claim, but my feeling that LoHo is more commonly used that you'd care to admit has nothing to do with any of it. My experience tells me and shows me that. Thanks again, for trying to infuse your self righteous indignation on your minimalist’s Wikipedia.Juda S. Engelmayer 15:05, 23 January 2007 (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.