Knowledge (XXG)

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The result was withdrawn. A closer look at the article reveals that there are sources about Walkin. Although a few appear to be unreliable sources or passing mentions, there are some that likely suffice, such as some online Hebrew articles (which I can't read) and some offline English sources. Deletion is not needed. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Chaim Walkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable BLP. A Google News Archive search returns no useful sources; nor does a Google Books search. This article should be deleted for failing Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people), Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability, and Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

List of short place names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

List of long place names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Non-encyclopedic. Knowledge (XXG) isn't a collection of internal links. See WP:SALAT for more. Also nominating List of long place names for the same reason. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 23:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete these items have an indiscriminate thing in common. there is nothing that relates them other than a short name, which in and of itself is not notable. like "list of cereals whose names contain at least 3 consonants". its interesting, but not encyclopedic.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: long place names needs a separate afd, i think. that one is even more clear cut. you can set an arbitrary cut off for short names as either 1, 2, 3, or 4 letters, or whatever.subject is still a list organized by an unimportant quality. but what qualifies as long? 12 letters, 10, 20, 100? each language may have standards about what is a long name or word. long is a judgement, like "interesting" or "unusual". the list is fascinating but both indiscriminate and impossible to define, thus unencyclopedic. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: perhaps the two articles could be merged (List of longest and shortest placenames)? ~Asarlaí 01:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. This is trivial and impossible to define. JBsupreme (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep both And fix inclusion criteria to have longest/shortest place name by country, with WP:RS, of course. Lugnuts (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep The nomination does not have a leg to stand on: "unencyclopedic" is just begging the question and the reference to WP:LINKFARM is inappropriate as lists of this sort are specifically exempted. The topics are evidently notable - see the book Limits of language, for example. And there has been no attempt to engage with the topics by discussion at their talk pages which is contrary to our deletion process. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I guess that "non-encyclopedic" in this instance is a synonym for "crap that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia", and yet this type of thing turns up in reference books anyway. The nominator is right that this is unsourced, for which there is no excuse, but I've seen these in The Book of Lists and what used to be called the "Information Please Almanac". People have been writing and reading about unusual place names since the days of H.L. Mencken. This is an example of where one can objectively describe what makes the name "unusual", with the measure being based on one or two letters in the name. The reason that someone would consult Knowledge (XXG) would be to verify whether there really is such a place as "Å". Mandsford (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per Mandsford and Colonel Warden. "Unencyclopedic" means nothing unless it is backed up by policy. The list for sure requires better inclusion criteria and some sourcing, but not deletion. --Cyclopia 18:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep the first - "Non-encyclopedic" is just another word for "I don't like it." If a comprehensive, online encyclopedia is not the place for a list of one-and two-lettered real places, then I don't know what is. Places are inherently notable, and non-random lists of such would thus be notable. The nomination neither cites direct policy, nor explains logically why it should be eliminated. This is precisely the sort of thing our core constituency, students at high school and college, would need here, and is commonly kept here by consensus. Not sure about the second list, which is subjective. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Where are the sources about these short place names? The one Colonel Warden supplies certainly doesn't pass any interpretation of WP:N. The fact that some sources consider very short place names (or very long ones) as unusual is already mentioned in Place names considered unusual, where more info can be included. But this is insufficient to have a separate list for subjects which share only a minor, inconsequential characteristic (the length of the placename has no relation to the actual village, apart from those one or two extremely long ones luring tourists by that amusing characteristic). Fram (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• The source I provided is written by an academic linguist and has a section entitled, "Long and short place-names" which covers our topic. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the link you provided, it has a section "common place names", and that is the only page the text "short place names" can be found. Fram (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources will/should be in the articles themselves. Lugnuts (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• The facts are as I have stated. You have to use quotation marks to get Google Books to show you the section title in a snippet view and such quotation marks do not seem compatible with our link syntax. For an example of a source whose content is more visible, please see The Rotarian. It is possible to find such such in just a minute of searching. Deletion of articles without making such searches is improper as it violates both our deletion and editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's more visible, yes, but it is hardly "significant" (is the official Rotary publication even a reliablesource for non-Rotary related info?). One line, plus five examples, three of which are not even in our list (T.B., OK, and Ai). Amusing trivia, nothing more. Google books has three books that may contain a similar very short section on short place names (the one you gave above, a book by Julius Nicholas Hook (only about the US though) and Ripley's Believe it or Not. Google Scholar has nothing. So neither the sources presented by others or the ones I could find are sufficient as a justification for this list. Fram (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as per Colonel Warden and Bearian. I don't see this information anywhere else online (existent pages are copies of this one) and it's not the easiest thing to find in the library. It is encyclopedic, it's not available elsewhere. Does each entry need to be cited if it links to an article that is properly cited? Longest names should be a different article; it's a different linguistic phenomenon with language-specific information. --Sainge.spin (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The difficulty of finding it elsewhere isn't really a valid reason. WP:ITSUSEFUL ~DC _{Talk To Me} 03:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Per the following reasons. This hasn't been followed as the article has no recent discussion on the talk page (the most recent discussion as in August), the article hasn't been tagged for improvement, and sources have been shared. (non-admin closure) Dusti 20:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional spacecraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is the second deletion discussion for this article; the first (under the original title "List of fictional spaceships") can be found here.

Delete. This list is just far too vague and indiscriminate. I've spent a good deal of time trying to clean it up but I realize it really is just a lost cause. Please note that this has been listed once before approximately one year ago, the result being no consensus. JBsupreme (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Any reason this should be a list instead of a category? Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why it can't be both? Mandsford (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. fictional information should be notable OUTSIDE the fictional work, ie in the real world, and not just among fans. if these were discussed outside the fanworld, i could see a small list of ships that got attention like that, not enough to justify an article. star wars and star trek ships have articles already. a few sf novels, like ringworlds ships, maybe tau zero, 2001. most ships are simply vehicles for carrying a story along (pun intended), and are not usually characters in their own right, and rarely notable characters. Making this a category sounds nice.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly an exceptionally notable subject suitable for a list article. How best to organize it or split it up for manageability is an editing issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Apparently there are entire books on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Inclusion criterion too vast to make list manageable. A category would be more appropriate here.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Categories have their own problems and so complement rather than supersede lists - please see WP:CLS. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep There is no recent discussion at the article's talk page and so our deletion process has not been followed. It is easy to find good sources for this topic such as The Cambridge companion to science fiction and so this is just a matter of following our editing policy rather than deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I think this is a valid navigational list, just that it needs to stick to craft which actually have articles, to try and cover every craft from every notable sci fi fiction would be silly and unworkable. The source pointed out by Col. Warden looks like a good example of what could be used for a pre-amble, and also a way of categorizing craft. Someoneanother 17:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• KEEP These kinds of lists are very helpful, just because you think it's a lost cause doesn't mean it's not useful. --The_stuart (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep fictional spaceships form an important part of many science fiction works and the names of some of them have become famous. A list allows a short description of the spaceships unlike a category. MKFI (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per sources pointed out above and Child of Midnight. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Horselover Frost (talk · edits) 23:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Nom has changed vote to keep (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Aden, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all Alberta settlements below, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns. They are not sub-stubs, most have at least a map and geographic context, many have infoboxes, some have demographics section, some have climate data (weather network keeps updated weather conditions for these communities, why shouldn't wikipedia maintain an article?). --Qyd (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I'm sorry that the nominator did all the work of creating 110 separate discussions about places in the Canadian province of Alberta, but nobody wants to write, or even to cut and paste, 110 separate responses. I see that two people did-- but I bet that they didn't really want to. Mandsford (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No kidding! Went through all the motions nonetheless, as I wouldn't want to see articles nuked due to some technicality. --Qyd (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know of any other way of doing it. 117Avenue (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, with an explanation of its significance as a border crossing. 117Avenue (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Alcurve, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns. --Qyd (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 16:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Alsike, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns. --Qyd (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Hundreds and hundreds of Ghits show notability. Bearian (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't hits those are yellowpages wanting to advertise. 117Avenue (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no, you are wrong. I added some citations. Bearian (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1. No outstanding requests for deletion. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Atikameg, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns. This one is first nation. --Qyd (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to the Indian Reserve it is a part of, or expand the article to explain its significance. 117Avenue (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That's easier said than done. First Nations settlements are notoriously lacking in online presence. These are people that hunt and fish, not a whole lot of time spent by the computer. Doesn't mean they have to be left out of an online encyclopedia. --Qyd (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC) PS: Utikoomak Lake 155 already redirects here.

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.

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 Speedy keep - it has over 25,000 Ghits. Bearian (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bay Tree, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns. --Qyd (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Beach Corner, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep While not being officially designated a "hamlet" is not automatically a reason for deletion, if nothing is there, then there really is no reason for an article. In this case, it does appear to be a population center and the name for the populated region.--Oakshade (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the reason for this population centre should be explained. 117Avenue (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns. --Qyd (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY; notable Lutheran community. Bearian (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bearberry, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns. Valid for all articles about Alberta communities listed below.--Qyd (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. In a few minutes, I found and added four reliable cites and text to proves this hamlet's notability. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Even more found in a few more minutes. Keep per WP:HEY]. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep It should be, that every defined settlement is notable. A very simple rule, and avoids discussing the hundreds of thousands of small settlements in the world individually. We can tolerate the articles better than we could tolerate the afds. We could make a policy to group them even so, but we have not done so. I am not sure of the merits--there is no clear way to settle arguments about the best arrangement of things. And in any case, this particular settlement hasenough information that even if it were an undefined neighborhood, we'd probably keep it. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as a verifiable and somewhat notable location, although the article does need a bit of work. –Juliancolton |  05:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 Speedy keep, see Google search. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bear Canyon, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions. --Qyd (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bergen, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_hamlets, WP:OUTCOMES and WP:BARE, as virtually all settlements are notable. I note that there are relatively few Ghits on this hamlet, and much of that is spam. Bearian (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I added two external links as a start. Bearian (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed one of them (4H doesn't seem appropriate under EL guidelines) Shadowjams (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note - I think the argument is that this might not be an actual location, or a "recognized" settlement. I agree with the inherent notability of places, but that also doesn't mean I can declare an area an arbitrary name and call it a settlement say it's inherently notable, and end the debate. I would like to see some official government reference to the location. (Also, the article needs either more content, or the rather irrelevant external links, which take on obscene amounts of undue weight in a stub, need to be removed). Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Big Stone, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - over 18,000 Ghits for people and businesses, some of which are notable themselves. Bearian (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bloomsbury, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Blueberry Mountain, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bonanza, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - It does seem to be the name of an entire region of Alberta which has a spread out population. Google books indicates many descriptions of this town due to its mineral deposits, hence the name "Bonanza." --Oakshade (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Then its significance should be explained. 117Avenue (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Boyne Lake, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazeau, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1. No outstanding requests for deletion. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Brocket, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - This one does seem to be an actual population center. --Oakshade (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the reason for this population centre should be explained. 117Avenue (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. This one is a center for the large Blakfoot Nation in southern Alberta. --Qyd (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Alberta Municipal Affairs defines a hamlet as any unincorporated community. There are many hamlets not listed on any official list. Since this is the population centre of the Peigan Reserve, I vote that it be kept. --Kmsiever (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't, the definition can be found at Hamlets of Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Redirect to Peigan 147, or expand the article to explain its significance. 117Avenue (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Or the other way around since the above was created only last week. --Kmsiever (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - It is a an actual community. All population centers are inherently notable.--Oakshade (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Buffalo Head Prairie, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Burmis, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Calais, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Camp Creek, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Carcajou, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, this is a first nation/metis settlement, is not under provincial jurisdiction, hence not recognized by Alberta Municipal Affairs in any way, as they are under federal jurisdiction. Should be kept as any settlement is intrinsically notable.--Qyd (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Carnwood, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Carrot Creek, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Castle Mountain, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns. This one is a tourist centre at the intersection of Trans-Canada Highway, Alberta Highway 1X and Banff Windermere Parkway. Is this the site of the Castle Mountain Internment Camp? Keep all mass nominated. --Qyd (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Then its significance should be explained. 117Avenue (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy redirect to Janvier South. Spartaz 15:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Chard, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Redirect per sources provided by Hwy43. --Qyd (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete/redirect as Chard is an alternate name for Janvier South (further also known as Janvier). See its article that I recently moved, edited and referenced. This is the one, and perhaps only, Alberta community article recently nominated for deletion that should in fact be deleted in favour of redirection to Janvier South. --Hwy43 (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Chateh, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Cherry Point, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Chief Mountain, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Chinook Valley, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep - over 36,000 Ghits, site of a university. Bearian (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

College Heights, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Cranford, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Crestomere, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Darwell, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - The Toronto Star calls this a "village" , at least at the time W.P. Kinsella grew up there. That the nom feels that not being designated a "hamlet" by a government agency doesn't mean it's not or ever was a population center. --Oakshade (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Then its historical significance should be explained. 117Avenue (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1. No outstanding requests for deletion. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Driftpile, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: This is the main settlement of the 775 strong Drift Pile River 150 indian reserve. --Qyd (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Drift Pile River 150, or expand the article to explain its significance. 117Avenue (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Eagle Hill, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Elkton, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Entrance, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Esther, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Eureka River, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fenn, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Finnegan, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fisher Home, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fitzgerald, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Flat Lake, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Foisy, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fork Lake, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fox Lake, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Franchere, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodfish Lake, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodridge, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Gordondale, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Gurneyville, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Habay, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hamlin, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hartell, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Heath, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hondo, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoselaw, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hotchkiss, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. This is one of few settlements along the Mackenzie Highway, possibly a Presbyterian farming community.--Qyd (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Then its significance should be explained. 117Avenue (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Mills, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Indian Cabins, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions. This is one of very few settlements on the Mackenzie Highway. --Qyd (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Then its significance should be explained. 117Avenue (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Iron River, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

James River Bridge, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kathleen, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Keg River, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, this is a first nation/metis settlement, is not under provincial jurisdiction, hence not recognized by Alberta Municipal Affairs in any way, as they are under federal jurisdiction. Should be kept as any settlement is intrinsically notable.--Qyd (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Lake Isle, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Lindbrook, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy redirect to Goose Lake. Spartaz 15:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Lone Pine, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Like Chard, delete/redirect as Lone Pine is an alternate name for Goose Lake. I intend to edit the Goose Lake article to reflect such. This is the second Alberta community article recently nominated for deletion that should in fact be deleted in favour of redirection due to being an alternate name for an existing hamlet. --Hwy43 (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Loon Lake, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, this is a first nation/metis settlement, is not under provincial jurisdiction, hence not recognized by Alberta Municipal Affairs in any way, as they are under federal jurisdiction. Should be kept as any settlement is intrinsically notable.--Qyd (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Lymburn, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Maleb, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Mariana Lake, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

McRae, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Millicent, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Mission Beach, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Morley, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, this is a first nation/metis settlement, is not under provincial jurisdiction, hence not recognized by Alberta Municipal Affairs in any way, as they are under federal jurisdiction. Should be kept as any settlement is intrinsically notable.--Qyd (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1. No outstanding requests for deletion. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nacmine, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - This does appear to be an actual town/population center. It might not have its own government, but it is a separate population center. Kind of like an American census-designated place. --Oakshade (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions. This is a former mining town merged into the weird municipality of Drumheller (along with a half dozen other communities). --Qyd (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a community in Drumheller. 117Avenue (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

New Fish Creek, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nojack, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Onefour, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Peace Point, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions. This one is of historic importance, as the place where peace between the Cree and Beaver First Nations (Danezaa) was reached, thus shaping the distribution of First Nations in northern Alberta by the time of colonisation. Gives the name to the Peace River. --Qyd (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Then its significance should be explained. 117Avenue (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Peerless Lake, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, this is a first nation/metis settlement, is not under provincial jurisdiction, hence not recognized by Alberta Municipal Affairs in any way, as they are under federal jurisdiction. Should be kept as any settlement is intrinsically notable.--Qyd (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pipestone, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pocahontas, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Poe, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pollockville, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Raven, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Rich Lake, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Rocky Lane, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Rossington, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all, every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. And please don't mass nominate before investigating more in-depth, some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, some touristic attractions, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• While a small settlement may, if not easily referenceable, be redirected to another topic, such as a larger municipality that it's part of, no size of settlement is ever deleted from Knowledge (XXG) as being insufficiently notable. The only grounds for deleting a named settlement would be if there weren't any evidence that it even existed in the first place. If there's a viable redirect target, then consider redirecting; but otherwise, keep per Qyd. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 speedy keep. Spartaz 15:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Scotfield, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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