Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various Alberta place stubs

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete the 12, keep the rest. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Various Alberta place stubs[edit]

Various Alberta place stubs - (View log)

All of these articles were very recently created with absolute minimal content. Aside from the thought process that any place with a name is notable (which only applies to identified places), there is absolutely no rationale behind creating these several dozen stubs with the sole content of "Foo is an unincorporated community in Alberta." These can be recreated when there are sources, and more information, and not be created en-masse with basic information. Surely these are better suited in the List of unincorporated communities in Alberta?

Not to mention that most of these place names sound like developer names for cookie-cutter neighbourhoods designed to sell. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'll note that I'm not sure how to properly manually template these articles with the afd tag. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say delete all, but I was opposed in January 2010. 117Avenue (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm certain these would all be worthy of keeping, but need a case of WP:HEY. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should point out that List of unincorporated communities in Alberta, is also on the verge of deletion. See it's talk, the list is incomplete, and bias to some counties. 117Avenue (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had some initial observations on the articles that either of you may have already made yourselves. 27 of the 32 places appeared to be within Athabasca County (all with same lat/long), while the remaining five appeared to be within MD of Bonnyville No. 87 (all with same lat/long).
I've since briefly reviewed land ownership mapping at the official web sites of the two municipalities and noticed that some of these appeared to be country residential (aka rural or acreage) subdivisions, while others appeared to be lakeside subdivisions (seasonal recreation properties). I then researched each in detail at StatCan and the CGNDB and found the following.

Place Alternate Name StatCan
[1][2]		 CGNDB Lat/Long Municipality
Athabascan Acres, Alberta Athabasca Acres Y     Athabasca County, Alberta
Balay Estates, Alberta Balay Subdivision Y     Athabasca County, Alberta
Bank Bay, Alberta   Y Y 54° 34' 14" N 110° 14' 05" W Bonnyville No. 87, Alberta
Beacon Corner, Alberta   Y Y 54° 10' 47" N 111° 09' 09" W Bonnyville No. 87, Alberta
Beaver River, Alberta   Y Y 54° 22' 12" N 110° 15' 58" W Bonnyville No. 87, Alberta
Big Coulee, Alberta   Y Y 54° 52' 44" N 113° 17' 00" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Big Meadow, Alberta   Y Y 54° 23' 31" N 110° 39' 42" W Bonnyville No. 87, Alberta
Blue Heron Estate, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
Century Estates, Alberta   Y Y 54° 35' 12" N 113° 34' 45" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Coolidge, Alberta   Y Y 54° 35' 12" N 113° 34' 45" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Deep Creek, Alberta   Y Y 54° 57' 20" N 113° 12' 30" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Deer Ridge Estate, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
Durlingville, Alberta   Y Y 54° 16' 50" N 110° 39' 17" W Bonnyville No. 87, Alberta
Golden Nodding Acres, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
Grosmont, Alberta   Y Y 54° 51' 52" N 113° 33' 55" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Jumping Deer Estate, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
Kinikinik, Alberta   Y Y 54° 35' 20" N 113° 00' 39" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Lahaieville, Alberta   Y Y 54° 47' 59" N 113° 33' 54" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Lincoln, Alberta   Y Y 54° 40' 32" N 113° 30' 40" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Meadowbrook, Alberta   Y Y 54° 29' 38" N 113° 39' 38" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Mystic Meadows, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
North Bay Estate, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
North Skeleton Beach Estates, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
O'Morrow, Alberta   Y Y 54° 55' 14" N 112° 51' 44" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Paxson, Alberta   Y Y 54° 40' 54" N 113° 00' 22" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Pelican Beach, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
Perch Cove Estates, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
Pickerel Point, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
Pleasant View, Alberta   Y Y 54° 56' 13" N 113° 04' 03" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Richmond Park, Alberta   Y Y 54° 53' 58" N 113° 10' 59" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Sawdy, Alberta   Y Y 54° 51' 00" N 113° 23' 47" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Spruce Valley, Alberta   Y Y 54° 51' 45" N 112° 48' 05" W Athabasca County, Alberta

Those recognized by StatCan are referred to as "localities", while those in the CGNDB are listed as "unincorporated areas".
I've since reviewed Athabasca County's 2009 Land Ownership Map, and have the following observations:

  • of those that do not have a Y in both the StatCan and CGNDB columns above, all but one of them (North Bay Estate) appear to are rural country residential or lakeside residential subdivisions (North Bay Estate could be the same as the rest of these, I simply have yet to find it yet on the map)
  • of those that do have a Y in both columns above, all of them appear to be localities or named locations and not communities, except for Century Estates that is a country residential subdivision.

In the M.D. of Bonnyville No. 87, I could only find Beacon Corner on its 2010 Land Ownership Map. It also appears to be a locality or named location and not a community. Hwy43 (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, if these were all incorporated into the two county articles in which they are located, could there ever be enough information on them to justify forking them out? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt any of these could ever have enough referenced information to warrant their own articles unless they have any significant ties to history like Amber Valley, which is also in Athabasca County. Hwy43 (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly agree that in principle, any named community is valid as a potential article topic, regardless of size, but you're also correct that there's little to no value in keeping an unreferenced stub whose only verifiable content is the statement that the place exists. WP:HEY definitely pertains here (and I didn't even realize there was actually a named principle which encompasses the way I've already approached a good many AFDs in the past!), but I should point out as well that is often a third way between keeping crap and deleting "notable" topics: what I've often done with poor/unreferenced/unexpandable articles about unincorporated communities in Ontario is to redirect them to the article on the incorporated municipality that they're actually located in. I'm not knowledgeable enough about municipal government in Alberta to simply jump in and impose that solution myself, but it's certainly preferable, wherever possible, to just deleting an article (even a bad one) about a named community. So I guess my question would be: is Athabasca County the primary unit of local government here, or are some or all of these communities part of another municipal unit within the county, such as a city, town or other form of municipality? Generally, these should be redirected to whichever entity, be it the county or an incorporated town or city within the county, is actually responsible for providing their primary local governance — although if there are any that can't even be verified as existing at all (i.e. not listed in any of the geographic or statistical directories that we typically turn to), then those stragglers should obviously just be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Outside those that are rural country residential or rural lakeside residential subdivisions, I'm hard-pressed to believe that any of the balance of these places were ever communities that were populated or settled without any reference confirming otherwise. I've never been fond of redirecting a place article to its administrating municipality unless the article on the administrating municipality provides at least some sort of information on the redirected place... this is a personal preference though where I'm not sure if any WP policy/guideline would support this preference. I am recommending below immediate deletion of the stragglers that are not in Canada's geographical directory (the CGNDB). Hwy43 (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 12 (Athabascan Acres, Balay Estates, Blue Heron Estate, Deer Ridge Estate, Golden Nodding Acres, Jumping Deer Estate, Mystic Meadows, North Bay Estate, North Skeleton Beach Estates, Pelican Beach, Perch Cove Estates, and Pickerel Point, and Pleasant View) as they are unnotable, low density country residential and lakeside residential subdivisions developed in rural areas within rural municipalities that are not recognized by NRCan in its Canadian Geographic Names Database. If we start creating articles for these, then are we going to start creating articles for every named three or four-storey walk-up aparment building in Edmonton, or every named townhouse development in Calgary?
    WP:HEY for the balance. If no response to WP:HEY and these unreferenced stubs are not referenced and improved to an acceptable starting point for a stub, then I say delete. If kept and improved, these articles should refer to these places as localities (per StatCan), unincorporated areas (per CGNDB), or even named locations instead of unincorporated communities as all do not appear to be communities at all (except for Century Estates). Also note that is unknown if anything has ever existed at these places, or if they were ever populated. Again with the one exception, they all could simply be places that were named/founded but never settled. Hwy43 (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Revised (providing clarity with official position below).[reply]
    Keep the remaining 20 as StatCan recognizes them as localities and the CGNDB recognizes them as unincorporated areas (not unincorporated communities). If these 20 survive, I will request the original editor to improve these (in line with the intent of WP:HEY). If not improved, and if nominated a second time, my position would likely be different the second time around. Hwy43 (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 12 identified by User:Hwy43 above. (Note below-- keep the other 1920). These are described by some of us as "kittens", articles that are created in mass quantity and then abandoned. In this case, all apparently created by one editor [3] based on the premise that every place identified on the map is an unincorporated community. WP:NPLACE describes a common outcome to the effect that if you wish to write an article about a populated community and can demonstrate that it is or was at one time a community, it will usually be kept. It's not a subject-specific notability guideline, hence it's not in the class of articles where all one has to do is make a stub and walk away. The distinction is necessary to make, mainly because WP:NPLACE is so often misused by people who want to pretend that their neighborhood or subdivision or trailer park is kind of like their own little town all its own-- or, in this case, who create articles en masse and think that an important contribution has been made. Some of these probably are thought of as their own communities, perhaps with their own post office or local grocery or gas station and located many miles away from the closest incorporated town. And some places, especially those that end in "Acres" or "Estates" are clearly a real estate development, and their residents would laugh out loud at the idea. Hence, I agree with Hwy43's approach. The others can be dealt with later. Mandsford 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Never mind After reading the rest of the discussion, I don't agree with anyone's approach.[reply]
Just noticed another created by the editor – Academy, Alberta. It shows up at StatCan as a locality within Calgary and at the CGNDB as an unincorporated area. Should this be added to this AfD as well? I also notice it has been deemed or assumed a "ghost town". I often see new articles created on Alberta places that have also been deemed or assumed the same, but with no verifiable references and no confirmation they were ever populated in the first place. Hwy43 (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'll confuse things further, and it's already confusing with delete these, keep those. It can be nominated separately, citing to this argument. For the record, I think that you're saying to Keep 1920 of these (Bank Bay, Beacon Corner, Beaver River, Big Coulee, Big Meadow; Century Estates, Coolidge, Durlingville, Deep Creek and Grosmont; Kinikinik, Lahaieville, Lincoln and Meadowbrook; O'Morrow and Paxson, and Pelican Beach; and Pleasant View, Richmond Park, Sawdy and Spruce Valley; and on the other hand, Delete 12 others Athabascan Acres, Balay Estates, Blue Heron Estate, Deer Ridge Estate, Golden Nodding Acres, Jumping Deer Estate, Mystic Meadows, North Bay Estate, North Skeleton Beach Estates, Pelican Beach, Perch Cove Estates, and Pickerel Point, and Pleasant View. It would help if the nominator would take some of these off the table. Of course, it would have helped if somebody hadn't decided to slap up 32 articles without any remote interest in the subject matter... Mandsford 03:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Never mind. Mandsford 14:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to deleting the above 12 as I just amended (originally indicated Pleasant View when I meant Pelican Beach). I would prefer the 20 (including Century Estates) also be deleted as well if the editor or someone else doesn't offer to save these articles. I don't intend to adopt or feed these kittens. (Note that Academy is neither within the 12 or the 20 as you suggested. If all 32 are deleted, I'll nominate Academy separately.) Hwy43 (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Revised (see below).[reply]
Yes to keeping the remaining 20 (refer to my revised comments above that clarify this position). Hwy43 (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave all of them up so that any newcomers to the discussion can see the others, in case they have an opinion on what to do to them. The way I see it, its best to improve the one large list of Alberta communities by sourcing it and clearing up the list, then to merge/redirect those 19/20 articles to the list and delete the other dozen. In Ontario, most communities of even considerable size (ie Midhurst, Ontario) redirect to their parent municipality, which are far more comprehensive articles on the area at large. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding my preference on the 20 in my last comment, I do agree with Mandsford that these could be dealt with later. Hwy43 (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. At this point I support deleting the dozen listed above, but am leaving the others on the list in case somebody else feels more belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydian (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Not much comment has been received yet. Could it be that the large size of the nomination is discouraging others to comment? Hwy43 (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears I have unnecessarily muddied things by originally providing a position on the 12 (delete), and stating a preference on the other 20 (delete if they aren't improved) instead of an outright position. To be more direct, my official positions are delete the 12 and keep the 20 (see above). Hwy43 (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 12[edit]

For reference, here are the 12, I think I'm seeing a consensus to continue the AfD only with these:

Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete those 12. No opinion on the others. Some of those others may really be unincorporated communities, but I don't see that any effort was put into making articles about them. Mandsford 20:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, including the ones not mentioned in the list immediately above. At this point it appears that no effort will be put into expanding them beyond "X is a community in Y", and so these are pointless placeholders. No prejudice against recreating them with something more than just where the place is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 12 (and keep the 20)  I worked on "Balay Estates" finding that a multiple listing service was listing undeveloped real estate in "Balay Estate" near Rochester, AB.  Following the road directions there was a street that on Google was called "Spruce Close".  But the realtor service had not set up their mapping with Google to properly show the location, nor did they know that someone was calling the street "Spruce Close".  I checked all of the 12 names to see if Google knew about them as places, but I found none.  On the contrary, when I checked one name from the original list, "Spruce Valley", Google knew that it existed.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if a MLS would be considered a reliable source. Using the county-published 2009 Land Ownership Map would be a more reliable source, which refers to the subdivision's name in the plural form. The singular form of the name may be a realtor's typo. Hwy43 (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 12 per comments on previous iteration of this AfD above. Hwy43 (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these. I take a very broad view of geographic notability , but I agree that mere housing subdivisions that do not actually amount to communities are not usually notable. (Especially when there's almost no information available) DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all 32 to a list. We're getting a little too detailed; would someone please try to write about large places somewhere other than North America rather than tiny non-places? Stifle (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No joke, there are many decent-size governmental subdivisions in places like India and Indonesia that have no articles, and many other such articles in horrible shape.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 12 on the understanding that subdivisions, which these apparently are, are not inherently notable. No prejudice to recreation of actual content articles on actual communities, I am not a big fan of mass stub creation like this though sometimes it may have some value.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this deletion is without prejudice.  I found another listing that shows that Balay Estate or Balay Estates or Balay Subdivision is populated, and populated areas are generally considered notable.  This one can't be adequately/reliably identified currently, so is not notable, but I think it would not take a lot for it to qualify.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A populated subdivision is not usually considered notable, it can be covered in the article of corresponding community in which it is located.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some cases, they would not be worth covering in the article of the corresponding community. Mentioning every named estate residential subdivision in a rural municipality's article would provide similar value to mentioning every named 3-storey walk-up apartment building within a city. Hwy43 (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also believe that more than just notability determines whether an article is worthy of continued existence (in its current state). The article should actually tell us something about the topic. I not only gain no more than I could from a atlas index, but I see nothing that couldn't be discussed in the manner that an article such as Unorganized Algoma District is arranged (which, I note, is a beautiful example of how we can take two dozen two-sentence stubs, a couple of pictures, and make a pretty decent article). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:57, 23 March 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Various_Alberta_place_stubs&oldid=1085523787"