Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsʼu Kué 196G

Tsʼu Kué 196G

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I couldn't find sources to add to prove it meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * merge? It's on the national map, and it does appear to be claimed by the Smith's Landing First Nation, and that is the entirety of what I could find other than some very minor data. At this point I think it makes the most sense for the list of reserves for this first nation to be converted into a table with data from the official Canadian sites, as there's not really enough on any of them to make a separate article that I can see. Mangoe (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Smith's Landing First Nation. A First Nation and its reserve can have two separate articles if there's actual substance that can be said and reliably sourced about them to support separate articles with, but they do not always need to have two separate articles as an automatic matter of course — so until somebody can write something more substantial and better-sourced than "this is a place that exists, the end", a reserve should be retained as a redirect to the nation that inhabits it in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. Liking the solution proposed by Mangoe above of creating a unified table of all the Smith's Landing First Nation reserves. What is puzzling is that nine of the ten reserves listed on Smith's Landing First Nation actually can be verified on the Government of Canada website (see the example of Thebathi 196), but not seeing this "196G" there. Also, one of the sources on that page says that the band successfully reclaimed nine reserves, not ten, so was wondering if the tenth somehow has different status. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The other thing to add is that if you look at the article history, Tsʼu Kué 196G actually started out with citations like the other nine reserve stubs, but they were removed in 2020 due to failed verification. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.