Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace Point, Alberta

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 speedy keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Point, Alberta

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions. This one is of historic importance, as the place where peace between the Cree and Beaver First Nations (Danezaa) was reached, thus shaping the distribution of First Nations in northern Alberta by the time of colonisation. Gives the name to the Peace River. --Qyd (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then its significance should be explained. 117Avenue (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Wikipedia as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (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.