Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paget, Ontario


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Paget, Ontario

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

too short, and, Rail siding????! AddisWang (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete It doesn't even appear to be real. Alfy32 (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Google Maps shows "Paget", near the coordinates given at the top of the article.  Whether there's a community or anything else there that qualifies for an article is another question.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment: Well, it's real, but that's about all that can be said about it.  When railway tracks were first laid throughout Canada in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, literally thousands upon thousands of railway sidings were established.  Some became the nuclei of thriving communities...and others were destined for obscurity, nothing more than names which show up on some maps.  I have not found evidence that the criteria of WP:Notability (geographic features) for Geographic regions, areas and places are met:
 * The article gives no indication that the place is populated and I could not locate any Canadian census records specific to Paget.
 * I did not locate other indication of notability, past or present.
 * (Disclaimer: I only spent a few minutes searching with Google and have no prior familiarity with the location, so it's possible I missed something. EDIT: Looks like I voted too soon, but I'm not sure at the moment whether to vote merge/redirect or keep.) --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral Delete - per Mike Agricola's quite excellent analysis. Stalwart 111  23:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm probably still inclined to see this merged somewhere if there's nothing to verify that the location is populated/notable but I understand there's a precedent for geographic locations and there seems to be some grey area around this one. Must say, I'm impressed by the very civilised discourse at this AFD. Good work folks! Stalwart 111  01:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Natural Resources Canada says Paget is a "dispersed rural community", which implies it is (or at least was) a populated place. As Wikipedia is a gazetteer, this makes it notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The NRCAN website also states that it's an "unincorporated area." In light of WP:Notability (geographic features), does its lack of incorporation categorize it as a "Populated place without legal recognition"?  Or does the mere fact of its listing on a government website as a "dispersed rural community" constitute "legal recognition"?  The matter of legal recognition is important because the burden of demonstrating notability is higher in its absence: "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis....given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." --Mike Agricola (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the US at least, unincorporated communities listed in the Geographic Names Information System (the US counterpart to the Geographic Names Board of Canada) have generally been considered notable in the past. Canada's classification system is a bit different, though, as it appears to classify both populated places and non-populated localities as "unincorporated areas", and the latter historically haven't been notable unless they pass the GNG. That's why the "dispersed rural community" classification seems important here, since that suggests it's populated. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, there are a number of unincorporated communities that have articles at the English Wikipedia, including Okanagan Falls, because they are usually quite notable enough, although this does seems to be a special case. Regardless, I would myself still argue to keep the article per my reasoning below, but I am not sure about . TBrandley (what's up) 01:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies, TheCatalyst31 and TBrandley. I would have already voted keep if even one of three conditions was met: (a) reliable sources describing the community's history, landmarks, etc. could be located, (b) it were incorporated (and thus clearly legally recognized), or (c) it had its own census category: a search for Paget directs to "Sudbury, Unorganized, North Part".  By comparison, the census has specific categories for even small villages such as Consul, Saskatchewan, with a 2011 population of 84 persons, so the lack of a census category for Paget strikes me as indicative of its lack of notability.  Under these circumstances, I tend to agree with Clarityfiend that something more than mere existence is needed to warrant a separate article.  That's the case with the previously mentioned example of Okanagan Falls, which is definitely notable on account of its association with the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory.  However, it's definitely possible that someone familiar with the local history of the area can supply some additional sources so I may yet vote "keep". --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NGEO. It has been proven as a populated place at one point, and therefore should probably have an article at the English Wikipedia. TBrandley (what's up) 01:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Sudbury District, to a new subsection called "Unincorporated areas" Unorganized North Sudbury District. The place has official status according to the government reference, but there's not much to say about the place, certainly not enough for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I should note that Unorganized North Sudbury District already mentions Paget. That would be a reasonable merge/redirect destination.  However, it is possible that additional reliable sources about Paget may yet come to light later in this discussion, so I'm waiting for a bit to determine what to change my vote to. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Unorganized North Sudbury District. It is common practice for small Ontario communities without a viable article to redirect to the parent jurisdiction, see for example Category:Communities in Renfrew County which is full of redirects. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Unorganized North Sudbury District. For three reasons: (a) it has been a couple days since this AfD began and no evidence for the community's notability beyond mere existence has been presented, (b) this sort of redirect for small Ontario communities already has an established Wikipedia precedent, and (c) the Canadian census itself redirects a query for Paget to "Sudbury, Unorganized, North Part". --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, not redirect I don't think that anything at Unorganized North Sudbury District would (or even should, perhaps), discuss this particular place - will its map and coordinates be shown (e.g.?). Many places are not separated by census bureaux but that does not detemine their notability. Most unincorporated US places are not separately enumerated by the census bureau but keeping them has been the norm for years, due in part to their inherent notability (see WP:OUTCOMES, WP:NGEO) and WP's gazetteer purpose (see WP:FIVEPILLARS). Why practice in Canada should differ from that applied elsewhere in the world hasn't been satisfactorily articulated; and I submit that the burden is on the nominator and those advocating an exception to demonstrate the value of that. In the several days this AFD has been pending, the burden has failed to be met. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as a distinct, populated location. This is a case where verified existiance is notability per Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeeteer and per WP:OUTCOMES. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:33, 29 January 2013 (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.