Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/loso

Article LoSo listed on WP:VFD Apr 29 to May 6 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Well, it's a good article except for the little detail where it says that the term was invented today. Google search for LoSo + SoHo produces nothing of interest. Isomorphic 04:02, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Gee whiz, an encyclopedia article about a term less than twenty-four hours old first mentioned by some wag in a newspaper? Wot'll dey tink of next? Speedy delete, and take the unsigned comment, too. Please. - Lucky 6.9 04:33, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Delete - wikipedia is not a dictionary, and newly-invented slang wouldn't belong even if it was. -- Cyrius|&#9998 06:30, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
The New York Times is the newspaper of record, so if they mentioned LoSo, it must be significant. We shouldn't delete it because once the yuppies catch on, we'll have to add it back on anyway.
- Uh... just because it's in the New York Times, it doesn't mean it's encyclopaedic. Or, for that matter, necessarily true. In this case, the term is just far too new to consider. If others take it up, then we can put it in. Average Earthman 11:11, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Note: the above post (by User:129.105.34.230 was posted on the main VFD page. I have moved it "inside" the deletion debate. Oh, and delete. SWAdair | Talk 06:39, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Does the NYT article report this as a term that's actually being used, or is it serving as the author's vehicle to promote a newly coined name? If it's the former, it should be verifiable somehow, and we should keep. "LoSo neighborhood" produces zero hits, but not everything in the world is on Google. We could really use input from somebody who knows Manhattan. --Michael Snow 16:27, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Hmm... At first I thought, sure, but then I looked up the location. It's approximately 8 square Manhattan blocks -- incredibly small blocks, I might add. Other reasons:

SoHo is traditionally bounded on the south by Canal St;
Broome St. is not a major thoroughfare like Canal, Broadway and Houston, so it's not a typical urban boundary
West Broadway is not a typical urban boundary either; and
the SoHo Grand Hotel is inside this of this geographical fiction. I highly doubt they will market themselves as "LoSo's first-class boutique hotel".
NYT is full of itself anyway. Alcarillo 20:20, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, West Broadway forms one of the boundaries of Chinatown.
Delete. When this neologism is picked up by enough people, it will get an article. That the NYT originated it just increases the chances a little bit. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:54, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
When this one gets deleted, zap LoDo along with it, for the same reasons. SWAdair | Talk 05:00, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

West Broadway is NOT one of the boundaries of Chinatown. Broadway is. W. Bwy runs right in the middle of SoHo. Alcarillo 06:36, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've included the quote from the New York Times below. ~~Delete~~. Actually, a redirect to SoHo can't hurt. anthony (see warning)
- Thanks for getting the quote, anthony. I now vote delete. --Michael Snow 03:56, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"LURED by large spaces and manageable rents, 29 home furnishings stores have clustered in the lower reaches of SoHo.

Let's call it LoSo." - New York Times.

End discussion