Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador

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 no consensus to delete, defaults to keep. It could legitimately be redirected and any editor is capable of making that editorial decision. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador

Anybody who knows me I am all for improving geographical and real world coverage but I am concerned that this is an article is on a place so small it may not be worth an article. This states the 1891 population was 15. There is little online to verify it, and if it was a notable village or any settlement in Canada it would have far more google hits and references on maps. The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was listed in a census, it does or more likely did legally exist. Thus, I don't think we can delete it. But there's absolutely no information online except reprints of that census, and a second census that identifies a guy as being from Aaron's Cove. Granted there might be more information offline, but we need to actually find that information first. I would say we should redirect this to an article on whatever region Aaron's Cove (the actual name, per the census) was located in. Since it was a place that legally existed, it's reasonable that someone will eventually be looking for an encyclopedia article on it. --Rividian (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a listing for it at the Atlas of Canada, and added the coordinates to the article. Aaron Cove is also notable as a bay, and I have added it to Category:Bays of Newfoundland and Labrador. --Eastmain (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Database, atlas, census... these are the sources and they are distinct ways of organizing information, which have their place. I would still like to see what specifically encyclopedia information can be drummed up on this place. --Rividian (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if Blofeld of SPECTRE is concerned about WP:V, we should be concerned. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blofeld, this suprises me. Settlements are inherantly notable, and you have been a proponant of this. I understand that this was originally a substub, but we create them all the time. Given the time it will grow, as it has here. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 00:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has not grown beyond gazetteer data, though. Settlements aren't "inherently notable" just for the heck of it, we say they are almost always notable because there tends to be encyclopedic information written about them when we go to look for it. But if such coverage can't be found... it's theoretically possible that a settlement wouldn't be notable enough for a standalone article, this is especially true of long-defunct places. --Rividian (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Settlements are always a valid potential topic, yes, but "inherent notability" does not mean that a place is entitled to an unreferenced article. Valid reliable sources still need to be present — a stub referenced solely by gazetteer data doesn't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly what I thought. It wasn't so much that oh "this is a cove it can't be notable", rather there was nothing to verify and little online which proved it was a populated place that prompted me. If it had been referenced and had some basic fact I would have maked it as patrolled on my New Page Patrol. Now I am the foremost person for insisting that google shouldn't be seen as the yoda for knoweldge, particularly in the developing world but for a Canadian settlement I thought it may have even had its own website. On the contrary I found little to confirm it. Perhaps there was more there to verify it but I only had limited time due to technical difficulties I'm experiencing with my PC. If they now have something to verify them OK, but it surprises me that if they were major places of note there doesn't seem to much going for them. The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The settlement is long gone, if the coordinates are correct, not even ruins remain in the aerial photograph. The cove itself is still there, but there are thousands of similar (unnamed) features nearby. At a certain point, having an article on this sort of thing becomes useless. I suggest an agreement to not mass-create stubs on abandoned towns unless they have some context. The editors at WP:WPSCHOOLS have made such an agreement, at least as far as elementary schools are concerned. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the settlement is historical doesn't magically mean the settlement never existed. Just because a settlement is not there doesn't mean it's not notable. Under your reasoning, feel free to attempt to delete the abandoned Midland, California that I created as it doesn't have any buildings left.--Oakshade (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said to delete it, I'm just hoping people won't create more like it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.