Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silcox, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silcox, Manitoba

[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)

A nonexistent community back-formed from

Silcox station. I can find no testimony to it as a settlement, and in the US at least we have consistently deleted these rail locations, where at least GNIS misleadingly labelled them as "populated places". In this case we don't seem to have even that. Mangoe (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete It's basically a point on a map. No settlement there, the train stops to pick up wilderness adventurers, it's not easily accessible. I can't find notability for this place in any kind of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't even understand why we're calling it "Silcox station". It's a flag stop. Do we normally call these "stations"? There's no station, you literally have to call the railway company and tell them where you want the train to pick you up and drop you off. -- asilvering (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Many flag stops are physical buildings. This one is now (it is only a signpost), but based on what I understand of Canadian railway history, it is likely to have been a physical building in the years when railways needed agents in stations to communicate with crews and customers. The use of radio and cheap long-distance telephony led to the elimination of many station agents, and the buildings were either demolished or allowed to deteriorate to the point that demolition became necessary. In a Canadian rail context, though, station does not always mean a building. It can simply be a named place on a timetable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm familiar with Canadian rail. My question was about Wikipedia norms. -- asilvering (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The province of Manitoba appears to recognize this community. See this list of cities and towns on the province's website: Province of Manitoba,Infrastructure and Transportation. "Index to Cities and Towns | Transportation and Infrastructure | Province of Manitoba". www.gov.mb.ca. Retrieved 2023-07-28. A google search for Silcox is made difficult by several instances of Silcox as a surname. Travel Manitoba https://www.travelmanitoba.com/ doesn't seem to have a listing for Silcox. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look: see a town here? [1]. -- asilvering (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found their "Populations for incorporated centres over 1 000 as per Statistics Canada 2016 figures." suspicious and checked. Here is the census for Silcox: [2]. That is to say, there isn't one - it's part of a large unorganized census division, and the entire population of the area is in the low hundreds, with a population density of 0.0. I'm not sure what the province used to make their list, but it's certainly not a list of "incorporated centres over 1000". That phrase is obviously misleading. (I have no guesses for what it could possibly mean otherwise in context.) -- asilvering (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually going for the map in question is very revealing. First of all, the main page there is an outdated mess: in the case of Silcox, it says it's on a sheet which doesn't exist. But a look at this 2022 map tells all. It's easy to locate Churchill on the shore of Hudson Bay (because there isn't anything else man-made there), and as soon as you increase the magnification enough to see any detail at all, a thin line heading south from the town appears. This is the rail line in question, and on it are a series of "towns" exceedingly regularly spaced, among which may be found Silcox. The complete lack of roads or anything else except glacial lakes reveals these for the series of flag stops which they surely are. It would make sense to have a list of these in the train article, but it's patently clear they aren't real towns as soon as one gets away from highway maps, which not incidentally have a terrible record as far as these things go. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe My favourite bit is how the Silcox station is barely closer to Silcox Creek than Thibaudeau. -- asilvering (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silcox station

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "There's no 'there' there" looking at satellite imagery at the coordinates listed. Look at the image for yourself -- bogs, bugs and boreal forest for miles. You'd have to wade or canoe to get to it. No siding or structure.

Also, Via Rail indicates the Silcox "station" is a sign post. My guess is that it's used by tourists (canoeists) in the summer.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]