Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swan City Trailer Court, 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 merge to Grande Prairie. J04n(talk page) 14:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swan City Trailer Court, Alberta[edit]

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

Also inluding:

This nomination includes three trailer parks located within the City of Grande Prairie, Alberta, Canada. They are, or were, listed as designated places by Statistics Canada for census purposes; however, I'm not convinced that this alone makes them notable. All three trailer parks exist within City limits and are not, as described, "unincorporated communities" - they're just developments within the City for which Statcan measures the population. I don't think any of them could pass GNG outside of the population count. According to MOS:CA, "A neighbourhood or community within an incorporated municipality, however, should only have an article independent of its parent municipality when an article can be written that meets the core content policies and guidelines." Madg2011 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background: Eldoes and Swan City were still StatCan designated places (DPLs) as of the Canada 2016 Census despite being annexed by the City of Grande Prairie from the County of Grande Prairie No. 1 on January 1, 2016. T&E was a DPL in 2006 despite being annexed on January 1, 2001. It was retired as a DPL by StatCan for the 2011 census. All three were unincorporated communities within a rural municipality before annexation into an urban municipality. I will be back with more a little later, with my rationale for opposition. Hwy43 (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the outcomes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various Alberta place stubs, the 110 places proposed for deletion in 2010, and the other one or two-place Alberta unincorporated community AfDs discussed in the years that followed. All three are recognized as localities by StatCan (T&E, Eldoes, and Swan City), which was a key argument for those that survived the various place stubs AfD mentioned above. Just because these unincorporated communities are now within an urban municipality doesn't make them any different than any other unincorporated community remaining in rural municipalities that have persisted as articles over the years. Further, every DPL in Alberta has an article (see also Category:Designated places in Alberta). Deletion of these three without concurrent consideration of dozens of other DPLs, including five other trailer park/court DPL articles, is premature. A more fulsome discussion would be required. Hwy43 (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback Hwy43. I know you're an experienced editor in this space so I will consider accordingly. Madg2011 (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hwy43, would you describe past consensus as, "a designated place is inherently notable, regardless of population, municipal status, or GNG?" If all it takes to make a place notable is that Statcan recognition, then these clearly qualify - but that seems like an unusual variable to prioritize. The only thing that makes these three trailer parks different from any neighbourhood, development, apartment building, or other trailer park (there are at least two more) in Grande Prairie is that Statcan publishes/published census data for them.
I think the current practice works well in rural municipalities. There, a DPL is likely to be a notable settlement or local population centre. But within City limits I feel that the logic breaks down. Madg2011 (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Wikipedia used to have a consensus that all named geographic locations were always inherently notable, so that as long as their existence could actually be verified we had to keep an article regardless of whether or not it was possible to reliably source any actual substance about it beyond stating that it exists. But that's not the state of WP:GEOLAND anymore; it's since been tightened up to differentiate between "legally recognized" populated places, which are still presumed notable, and "not legally recognized" populated places, which are not. Basically, that means a city always gets an article, while a neighbourhood or subdivision or trailer park within the city only gets its own spinoff article if one can be sufficiently referenced to clear WP:GNG. So you're pretty much on the ball about what GEOLAND actually says, and Hwy43 isn't. In the context of the "various Alberta place stubs" discussion that Hwy43 raised above, these three are equivalent in nature and status to "the 12" that did get deleted, not to any of the ones that survived. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Grande Prairie. StatsCan census profiles, as valuable as they are as sources for demographic data, are not sufficient sourcing in and of themselves to get a community over WP:GEOLAND if there's really nothing else we can say or reliably source about them besides the demographic statistics alone. If these were unincorporated communities outside of any municipal entity, then obviously we'd have to keep them as there'd be no viable redirect target — but if they're within a city, then they really don't each need their own standalone permastub. Redirecting them to the city's article and adding brief mentions of them there, the same as we would do for any other insufficiently sourceable article about a city neighbourhood, is all we really need. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grande Prairie. Non-notable trailer parks. PhilKnight (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2018 (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.