Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunton, Manitoba

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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gunton, Manitoba[edit]

[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)

Article was created in 2004. Not much content has been added since.. Unreferenced. Doing a Google search comes up with only two items. Very small Unincorporated community, Jimj wpg (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Jimj wpg (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Verifiable populated place. Is clearly also capable of improvement.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. It's a verifiable populated place. Hog Farm (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep, barely The only real, solid source for this would seem to be Google Street View, which does show a "Welcome to Gunton" sign and a corresponding highway sign. There are consistent problems with anything talking about the place, though, in that nearly all references indicate that it was the site of a CP rail station and some sort of agricultural station (lots of references to poultry research). The first is the more dubious: the only rail line in the area is quite a bit south, and there's no sign of abandoned rail grade in the immediate vicinity. An ag station might be more erasable but I don't see an obvious sign of that either, leading me to wonder whether the historic Gunton and the current community are the same. GEONames hasn't heard of the place, and neither, apparently, has the Canadian postal system nor the census. There is clearly now a place called Gunton as far as its residents are concerned, and it's enough to imply retention, but I am mistrustful about any historical statements the article might make. Mangoe (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well all statements need to be sourced, and speculation about possibilities is good to vet everything. I would never rely only on Google Street View, though the historical marker about the history of Gunton pictured here ([1]) does sit in Gunton ([2]).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes me a bit more comfortable. Obviously GStreetview is too primary a source to rely on, but on the other hand the typical issue with "populated place" articles is that the claim is not consistent with the primary sources— that is, there isn't actually anything there. In this case, things do seem to check out. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND: Populated, legally recognized places. Searching Google for "Gunton Manitoba Post Office" returns pages that indicate that it had a post office at one time - Google seems to think the Post Office is permanently closed. Gunton had a post office in 1905. It would probably be a good thing to debate the question as to what "Populated, legally recognized places" means. Does having a post office mean that a place is legally recognized? I think it does, but others may have different opinions. 23:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep as a verifiable populated place. Lepricavark (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion, and WP:OUTCOMES. We tend to keep even the smallest of hamlets. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep described here as a discrete populated place, population 200, former population 3,000. That was a big town. ----Pontificalibus 06:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a populated place and officially is recognized as a city. Nika2020 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? This "unincorporated" settlement has 300 residents if that. A Town has a pop. of 1,000 (Niverville, Oakbank, Gimli, Headingley) . A City must sustain a pop. of at least 10,000 (Selkirk, Thompson, Morden, Portage la Prairie, Brandon, Winnipeg). Gunton doesn't qualify for City status. It's a Village at best. Jimj wpg (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have tons of articles on unincorporated communities (and ghost towns too). Also, although Gunton was never a city, there's no requirement that a city have 10,000 residents, e.g. Greenwood, British Columbia, population 708. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2020 (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.