Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flowerdale, Alberta


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Flowerdale, Alberta

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No third party sources to establish notability. Does not meet MOS:CA. 117Avenue (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - (same message as other nomination because same thing applies) See WP:GEOLAND. Permanently inhabited places are almost always notable when they can be proven to exist.  JT dale Talk ~ 06:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you prove this place is inhabited? 117Avenue (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history.  JT dale Talk ~ 01:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood, but respectfully, no evidence has been provided that it was ever notable throughout any point in its history. Based on the research below, it was essentially what we would now call a home-based business today. Hwy43 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My correction. I didn't read the article correctly, and I withdraw my objection.  JT dale Talk ~ 02:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This source only verifies there was a post office and store named Flowerdale (no confirmation that these were separate buildings). This source refers to this, which is a photo of the store and sod house (which appear to be one in the same as only one building is shown). This external link is a WP:SELFPUBLISH link. This external link is a picture of the store owner's house, which may very well be the house in the previous photo with a second floor replacing what appeared to be the sod roof. This external link actually refers to the existence of "Flowerdale Municipality", not this former place (most likely referring to "Flowerdale No. 244" covering a much larger rural territory that is confirmed to have existed in 1918). All I am seeing here is that a place with anywhere between one and three buildings existed for a very short period of time. There is nothing here that confirms it was notable per WP:GNG in its short period of existence. Hwy43 (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcuref1endx (talk • contribs)
 * under what grounds? Hwy43 (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as it actually fails WP:GEOLAND. It is not populated. It is not legally-recognized by Alberta Municipal Affairs. It is not recognized whatsoever in the Canadian Geographical Names Data Base, in the Alberta Geographical Names System (can be ordered for free via AESRD), or by Statistics Canada.
 * Delete per Hwy43. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND; also fails to meet WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 14:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND and WP:FIVEPILLARS gazetteer. Apparently is included in the Canadian Council on Geomatics (CCOG)'s Geobase according to Map of Flowerdale, Alberta. According to a number of easily found sources, it was considered to be a municipality for a number of years, so WP:NTEMP also applies. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I already addressed the municipality thing in my last post. The former municipality of the same name was the Municipal District (MD) of Flowerdale No. 244, a rural municipality covering a vast rural farming area (see List of municipal districts in Alberta for info on these types of municipalities). Anyway, this "Flowerdale" is a named place, not the vast former rural municipality. It could have very well been located within the MD, but this place (one the three buildings) was not a municipality in its own right. Hwy43 (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the article's topic needs to meet WP:GNG before WP:NTEMP can be invoked. So, I reiterate my last comment to JTdale further above; no evidence has been provided that it was ever notable throughout any point in its history. Being in CCOG's database doesn't confer notability to this place. All it does is confirm that this named former place exists. Hwy43 (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be knowledgeable about Canadian geography, so can you decode this 'Flowerdale; 1-28-12-w4; Special Area 2; Former Locality' for me from ? Does 'Locality' refer to the M.D. or to the place where A. R. Stewart's stone house and store/postoffice were located? Why can't the article be about both the 'ghost place' and the ghost M.D.? Evidence points to the place preceding and being in the M.D. Notability takes in the entire history of the geoplace. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "1-28-12-w4" refers to a land description in the Alberta Township System of the Dominion Land Survey. It is Section 1, Township 28, Range 12, west of the 4th Meridian. A section is one square mile in size. In this context, the (former) locality of Flowerdale would have referred to the house and store/post office, which would have been located somewhere within this one square mile. The MD of Flowerdale No. 244 would have comprised hundreds of sections of land.  Though I don’t have a map of this particular former MD, I have a map from the 1936 census that shows the former MD’s neighbour to the east, the MD of Collholme No. 243, was three townships by three townships in size.  Where a township is about 36 mi² (comprising 36 sections), Collholme No. 243 would have been about 324 mi² (or 324 sections).  Flowerdale No. 244, which dissolved in 1932 through an amalgamation, would have been of a similar size. At this time, this article cannot be about the 'ghost place' and the 'former MD' as we have no WP:RS confirming the ghost place was actually located within the larger former MD of the same name. That would be a speculative assumption that could very well be wrong. For example, Alberta's Hamlet of Mountain View is located in Cardston County, not Mountain View County that is over 270 km north of the hamlet. At this point, there continues to be no evidence that this ghost place met WP:GNG during its existence, so WP:NTEMP still does not yet apply (the MD of Flowerdale No. 244 on the other hand may be a different story). Hwy43 (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, per VMS Mosaic's information. It should be described as both a place / former hamlet / former community or whatever and also as a former rural municipality.  Good use of the Wikipedia to provide this simple, useful reference information. -- do  ncr  am  14:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * please see my responses to VMS Mosaic's questions above. We have no reliably sourced confirmation that the place was located within the former MD, and there remains no evidence that place met GNG at any time during its existence in order for NTEMP to apply. Hwy43 (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2015, that(UTC)
 * It was a formal municipality. So there is notability for an article.  The article can/should cover both hamlet and municipality.  If you want to argue, weirdly, that the hamlet was not in the municipality, do that at the Talk page of the article.  Responding negatively to every comment that does not agree with you is badgering, doesn't help your case.  Like I said, Keep, per VMS Mosaic. -- do  ncr  am  20:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Doncram, the place subject to this AfD was not a formal municipality. There is no disputing that the former municipality, the similarly named MD of Flowerdale No. 244, is notable. The former MD is not the subject of this article. I have not argued the place is not in the former municipality. All I stated, in response to VMS Mosaic, is we cannot assume that it was in the former municipality without confirmation. This was in response to VMS Mosaic suggesting that the article be about both the place and former municipality. I guess there is a thin line between badgering and providing greater detail than what can be gleaned from a surficial view of the article, and providing the context of Alberta’s communities and municipalities for the benefit of the nominator and all current and future contributors to the discussion. At least your position has been informed by much more than bare minimum. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment In looking over the historical City Directories for BC on the Vancouver Public Library website, many places turn up in their listings that aren't in BC Names or the Canadian Geographical Names databases; including post offices that aren't listed in either, too. And lots more; wondering if there is a similar city directories archive for Alberta....my gut instinct is to say "keep" or at least redirect/subsection it on MD No. 244's page; we have lots of uninhabited localities in BC e.g. Metsantan (Caribou Hide, British Columbia) and Taku, British Columbia and many others.  BCGNIS and CGNDB are by no means complete; the entries for Dewdney and Nicomen Island, for example, say nothing about their former municipal status, which I've been able to cite using historical newspapers....Skookum1 (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND, despite the red herring of the similarly named municipality. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC).
 * reply GEOLAND seems like a red herring, and if anything it needs amending; as per Category:Ghost towns, for starters, and any number of localities that are "on the map" and may or may not be populated (but being the only thing for 100 miles, definitely are notable in a geographic sense. That a place needs to be populated to be notable is inherently incorrect; that is an urban judgment/bias, for one thing, and the larger reality includes things like ghost towns and places like those mentioned in my previous post above.  Amend GEOLAND rather than delete something based on what it (currently) says.  It's not like God created that guideline; a few wikipedians did....and it clearly needs amending.  Scads of post offices, canneries and cannery towns, former municipalities abound; GEOLAND should respect and reflect that.... not interdict it.Skookum1 (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * here's a locality that hasn't been populated since 1964 and is highly notable, for a number of reasons; Haylmore only had the namesake and his family as population. The idea that population defines notability should be ditched; that's not a very useful or realistic limitation (in that case, other than it being heritage and him being historically as well as officialdom notable that was also an incredibly little 2.67 ha patch of placer claim in an important "mining camp" - meaning subdivision of a mining district).  Lots of former mines, and as mentioned cannery towns and logging camps, are no longer populated but were once bigger than still-populated locations in the same areas; and some like Haylmore and places like Gang Ranch and others only ever had a handful of people.  GEOLAND needs modification to reflect reality; not a desire to limit notability, which seems to be a general problem with WP:N guideilnes.Skookum1 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Minto City is yet another place that has not had a population since 1960 or so when its location was flooded for a powerproject; it had been marginally populated since a flood from the large creek it was at the mouth of delivered a flash flood with debris t hat mostly destroyed it. It's highly notable...but was never a municipality, either.  Camp McKinney from the same period was similarly large but depopulated after the mine closed; and Granite Creek, British Columbia yet another large place that is now has almost no sign of the former town there; it was also never incorporated, like dozens of other places I could name.  GEOLAND is outdated and needs revision, plainly put.Skookum1 (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have concerns about the vintage and currency of GEOLAND, the appropriate place to express them are at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). Hwy43 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that, of course, but it's been invoked here twice (in two different directions) and should be set aside as an issue vs actual precedents and reality as it is out of date and too narrow in conception to be taken seriously in this discussion. Like other guidelines it is NOT a rule.Skookum1 (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is arguing that a place that once had a population is not notable. But did Flowerdale once have a population? 117Avenue (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep: Former populated place with commerce conducted there.  We routinely deprod similar things like Bitch Creek Cow Camp, Idaho without debate as long as they were populated and in a defined location (not a neighborhood within a defined populated place).  What would be the nearest newspapers?  Can we contact anyone to seek additional coverage?--Milowent • hasspoken  21:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is this source that it once was a populated place? 117Avenue (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2015 (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.