Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sturgeon Heights, 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   speedy keep. Per WP:SK. No outstanding requests for deletion. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sturgeon Heights, Alberta

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

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) 23:50, 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 the main settlement of the Sturgeon Lake First nation (the one that keeps Highway 43 from being twinned all the way). --Qyd (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then its significance should be explained. 117Avenue (talk) 00:58, 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Redirect to the Indian Reserve it is a part of, or expand the article to explain its significance. 117Avenue (talk) 00:58, 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.