Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various Alberta place stubs

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

]

• Pickerel Point, Alberta
• Perch Cove Estates, Alberta
• Pelican Beach, Alberta
• North Skeleton Beach Estates, Alberta
• North Bay Estate, Alberta
• Mystic Meadows, Alberta
• Jumping Deer Estate, Alberta
• Golden Nodding Acres, Alberta
• Deer Ridge Estate, Alberta
• Blue Heron Estate, Alberta
• Balay Estates, Alberta
• Athabascan Acres, Alberta

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.