Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priestville, Nova Scotia


 * 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 though editors can merge to New Glasgow in the normal way - non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 05:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Priestville, Nova Scotia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Lacks "why it's notable" per WP:N. The only thing I see that could make it notable is unsourced. Also, article has no sources. (Per WP:RS & WP:V)Cavenba (talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Very little proof that it even exists. It doesn't even seem to be an actual town, just a name applied to a neighborhood/region. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 23:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Well, I guess it does exist after all, and its existence is verified now if only barely. And if it's even a four corners, it's notable. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 00:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to New Glasgow per below. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 02:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. All settlements are notable, whether or not they have a municipal charter. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep small community but still of note. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. All verified communities are inherently notable. 23skidoo (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Delete : The community is barely distinguishable from New Glasgow. In fact, there aren't any highway signs telling you that you're entering a community (as with many other small communities in the area), the only sign is for "Priestville Loop" which is a road with the same name. A Google search brings up two results (excluding two from Wikipedia itself, a link to a mirror site, one comment on Canadian Geographic, and one MySpace profile). It would have a better standing in the Pictou County, Nova Scotia article or something similar. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 01:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep All verified locations are notable, regardless of size. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: In fact, quite a chunk of this article is a direct copy from, so it's a copyvio. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 01:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: There removed. Also, as a note, also claims Priestville is located within the borders of New Glasgow, making it a neighbourhood in New Glasgow. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 01:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec * 2) Merge to New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, and paraphrase to avoid copyright violations. —Animum (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment again: the proposal WP:NPT says "[a] human settlement such as a city, town or village is considered notable only if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." Cavenba (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * that'swhy its just a proposal, it is unlikely to win wide acceptance. DGG (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to New Glasgow, Nova Scotia as it can be best discussed in context as a neighbourhood in the town until there are enough reliable sources to justify a break-out article. Though unreliable, I also note the interesting fact that GoogleMaps search brings up results as "Priestville, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia". Double Blue  (Talk) 04:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be an indpendent settlement, not a neighborhood.(and all such are notable) DGG (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Has anyone even found any reliable sources for Priestville? All I see in the article are government resources (primary sources), if there aren't any third-party resources (secondary sources) then why keep the article anyway? Cavenba (talk • contribs) 11:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The community was historically separate from New Glasgow, and was notable as a settlement. Municipal annexations and amalgamations do not make notable communities less notable. --Eastmain (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of the three links you added, two aren't valid as references and the article itself is only just barely removed from being a straight copyvio of the third. An atlas and a gazetteer entry are helpful links, certainly — but they're not references for an encyclopedia article about a community, because they don't support anything except the community's geographic location. You're right that municipal annexations and amalgamations do not make notable communities less notable, but lack of suitable references does make Wikipedia less able to properly determine the notability of a community. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep since this is listed as a designated place (DPL) by Census Canada. --Polaron | Talk 19:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 *  Possible speedy keep?  Geographical locations are an automatic WP entry, I believe. A poorly written article is not a valid reason for deletion unless it fails by other reasons, such as poorly written because of BLP violations. Chergles (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)  Someone wrote to me saying it does not meet speedily keep criteria.  I won't argue.  However, if it is a real town, it should not be deleted.  People are different.  Just because you are living or once lived, an article on you may or may not qualify. Chergles (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this place is so I will not comment on keep or delete. Chergles (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a neighbourhood within a real town, not a town in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into New Glasgow, Nova Scotia for lack of references. Named places are always potentially notable, regardless of size, but the concept of "inherent notability" is not an exemption from the requirement to provide proper sources. Neighbourhoods within municipalities (especially small municipalities for which there isn't really that much to say about each individual neighbourhood) should exist only as redirects to their parent municipality until properly referenced articles can be written which adequately explain why they're notable enough for their own separate articles independently of their parent municipalities. Even cities 20 or 30 or even 100 times the size of New Glasgow aren't automatically entitled to separate articles for each individual neighbourhood within their boundaries until such articles can be adequately referenced. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per Bearcat and per source provided by Cavenba showing it is within another municipality. DigitalC (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2008 (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.