Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unincorporated communities in 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   keep. v/r - TP 03:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

List of unincorporated communities in Alberta

 * – ( View AfD View log )

List is incomplete and is biased to only a handful of Alberta's numerous rural municipalities. Two requests for populating a list for the balance of the province have gone unheeded on the article's talk page. The article's creator was notified of the second request on the creator's talk page. Although it is unlikely a list of every single unincorporated community in Alberta may never be complete since there are so many, no effort has been made to at least cover the entire province. Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Further detail about the insufficient coverage noted above, here is a breakdown of the list article's coverage: Therefore, this is far from a comprehensive and unbiased list that covers all rural municipalities and Indian reserves in Alberta. The article is also unreferenced. Hwy43 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * includes three or more unincorporated communities from nine of Alberta's 74 rural municipalities;
 * includes less than three from seven of the remaining 65 rural municipalities; and
 * includes just one from the dozens of Indian reserves in Alberta.
 * Well, get to work, then. —  AjaxSmack   00:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Nominator does not seem to argue that the topic is not notable, but only that the list is incomplete. Please remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress.  Instead of deleting an incomplete list, we ought to improve it by adding to it through the normal editing process.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  04:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject, as a list, is encyclopedic. CJCurrie (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no definition of an unincorporated community, it could literally be every populated quarter section in Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 117Avenue is correct. Alberta (Alberta Municipal Affairs) and Canada (Statistics Canada or Natural Resources Canada) publish no definition of unincorporated community. That should bring the topic's notability into question as none of the listed articles can be "confirmed" to be "unincorporated communities". As a result, inclusion of any article in this list might be considered original research. Hwy43 (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but "unincorporated communities" can be taken to simply mean communities that aren't incorporated. What I want to point out is that this list ties into List of communities in Alberta.  I favour

Keep, as the list would seem to be encyclopedic and part of a set of lists of Alberta's communities.  PK T (alk)  15:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. No valid delete rationale has been given.  Being incomplete is not a valid deletion rationale, and the supposed bias is merely a function of the list being incomplete.  The lack of definition argument is invalid, as the list obviously includes only unincorporated communities with a name, so no, the scope does not include "literally every populated quarter section".  Ultimately, we have lists of cities, towns, hamlets and villages.  There are also articles on communities that do not fit those categories, and there is value in a list for them too.  The current article title sufficiently explains their status, but if there is a better title to be found, it certainly is worth discussing. Resolute 15:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider my family a community, and my family has a name, so can my home quarter be listed? 117Avenue (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can make any ridiculous argument you want. And when the government agrees with you by listing it somewhere, feel free to add it. Resolute 20:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting by that link? That only communities listed by Statistics Canada be used? As Hwy43 explained above, "unincorporated community" is not a status used by any authority, which puts all these list entries' notability into question, like my family farm. 117Avenue (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Then go after the individual articles. As long as the articles are valid, so too is the list.  And yes, Statistics Canada finds it useful to make note of these unincorporated communities, which is a reasonable sign that they are valid. Resolute 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I don't want to be the bad guy. 117Avenue (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that not every article in the list is actually a community, whether currently or historically, such as locations that have a name yet there is no evidence they were ever settled. Hwy43 (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:RUBBISH. And read WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.  —  AjaxSmack   00:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears consensus will be to keep. Failing some sudden influx of delete votes to swing it the other way, the article should be moved to List of unincorporated places in Alberta following the discussion since not every article in the list actually is a community. A number of the listed articles are simply named locations that provide no evidence they were ever communities, while some assert they were once communities yet aren't supported with references to verify these claims. In the creation of some of these articles, I suspect it was assumed they were formerly communities simply because they were on a map or within a government database under a different term than "unincorporated community". Some have even been deemed "ghost towns" without any references to support they were ever inhabited in the first place, but that is a different issue. Hwy43 (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIR guidelines. Furthermore, the article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles for unincorporated communities in Alberta, and is functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article in list format. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Purge of non-notable entries or Delete as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Deleting communities in the list would make the list less comprehensive, and hence, less encyclopedic, per the definition of purge listed here. Removing the red links would be functional, however, deleting communities that don't have articles about them isn't congruent with building an online encyclopedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep seems like a notable topic. Needs some clean-up and sourcing. But no reason to delete. Dzlife (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable topic, good list for inclusion and certainly better than having separate articles on each of the items on the list. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2011 (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.