Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muskeg Lake 102G

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 merge‎ to Muskeg Lake Cree Nation. This applies only to this article, the others will need to be nominated separate to this close. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muskeg Lake 102G[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)

Seems to be a description of a place with 0 population. There are a number of other similar pages which are subdivisions of Muskeg Lake 102. Maybe there is a reason why Statistics Canada uses this designation but I question how this meets the notability criteria on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the name for a Native American reservation [1], where the band has 200 plus people. Oaktree b (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's Muskeg Lake 102 which is not the page under discussion. Am I wrong? JMWt (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of their traditional territory the Federal Gov't has allocated to the band. It's one of a few "places" under this reservation. I'd perhaps redirect to the Lake 102 article. No one lives at this spot, but they do in the larger reservation. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there's a page for the reservation. We are discussing 102G. The reservation is 102 JMWt (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it should be deleted, a dot on the map of the reservation, is what I'm trying to explain Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why, User:Oaktree b should it be deleted, rather than redirected? Nfitz (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

merge this and other reserves in the province to List of Indian reserves in Saskatchewan It makes a great deal of sense to convert the latter into a sortable list with the basic data on each such reserve, which is pretty much what I'm finding in each such article. As it stands, these are too stubby and don't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND beyond the fact of their legal status. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is confusing to me how you get to this conclusion. As with others in this discussion, you appear to be talking about Muskeg Lake 102 when this discussion is about Muskeg Lake 102G. There seems little reason to merge Muskeg Lake 102 - but even if that argument is to be made, you can't make it in this discussion. JMWt (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the first sentence of the article? It says that 102G is an Indian reserve. Mangoe (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this and all of the other Muskeg Lake Cree Nation reserve stubs to the main article, Muskeg Lake Cree Nation:

I think this is a better target than the more comprehensive list for the entire province (List of Indian reserves in Saskatchewan). At a minimum, each stub contains location, coordinate and population information. Some also include other data. List of Indian reserves in Saskatchewan contains none of this data and it's already 20,124 bytes long which is above the suggested WP:TOOLONG limit of 15,000 bytes. We'd either have to expand the provincial list even further or lose information during the merge.

A merge to either article will involve converting the list to a table. That and redirecting the other stubs is probably a lot to ask of the closing admin

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either of Muskeg Lake 102 or Muskeg Lake Cree Nation . —siro χ o 04:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as appropriate. I don't see why a deletion (or an AFD) is necessary. Nfitz (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AFD just concerns the main article that was nominated. It was not set up as a bundled nomination, these other articles aren't even tagged for an AFD discussion and I doubt that the article creators were notified. Of course, that can happen in a future AFD but not in this one as it was set up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I've not nominated the other pages because I've not formed a view as to what should happen to them. It seems to me that there is a different policy argument with regard to deleting a page for a geographic place with a permanent population than one with an official population of zero. JMWt (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are three different Merge target articles mentioned in this discussion and we need to have participants pick the most appropriate one for this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 8 November 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.