Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Lily, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Tiger Lily, 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) 23:52, 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, some religion based settlements that refuse government authority. --Qyd (talk) 02:57, 10 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)
 * Keep per information and citations found. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It should be, that every defined settlement is notable. A very simple rule, and avoids discussing the hundreds of thousands of small settlements in the world individually. We can tolerate the articles better than we could tolerate the afds. We could make a policy to group them even so, but we have not done so. I am not sure of the merits--there is no clear way to settle arguments about the best arrangement of things. `    DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 12 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.