Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burdickville, Rhode Island

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. ✗plicit 12:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burdickville, Rhode Island

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unsourced, could not find anything to establish this as a real or notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 16:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rhode Island. –dlthewave ☎ 16:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this reference: "Burdickville: Rhode Island Blueways". exploreri.org. Retrieved 2023-05-07. Google Maps shows Burdickville with boundaries, not just as a point, and there is a Burdickville Road. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hopkinton, Rhode Island#Geography. While it did exist, it does not appear to have ever had official recognition and does not satisfy WP:NGEO. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment I found a "census" listing from 1885 which named this as a town. Also, the presence of the dam would indicate a mill of some sort in the past. That siad the documentation is extremely scanty. Mangoe (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found some additional sourcing and content to add. if anyone has free newsbank access, the original of that Aug 23, 1931 article I cite can be pulled, as well as others, it looks like at [1].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep population of 52 in the 1865 Rhode Island census[2]. A mill was operated there earlier in the 19th century[3]. Jahaza (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sourcing identified by Milowent, especially the Providence Journal article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2023 (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.