Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Day, Manitoba

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 redirect‎ to O'Day station. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O'Day, Manitoba

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that there was ever a community here. Natural Resources Canada lists it as a "railway point", so it's likely duplicate of O'Day station. –dlthewave ☎ 15:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another article on a location that is little more than a word on a map. Completely non-notable and nothing found that isn't sourced from WP or Via Rail, which only proves existence. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the associated census district 23 - please see the very lengthy station-by-station analysis of stations and associated “towns” on the railroad to Hudson’s Bay that I posted previously at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silcox station. I spent hours researching this points along this line. This location is a signpost in the middle of deep boreal forest and bogs. There’s no town. It’s many kilometers from any settlement. The flag stop serves the occasional canoeist or trapper. Look at it on satellite imagery and you can see there was never anything there.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. B., I'm not sure I follow the logic of redirecting a rail point to a census district. –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is or was a railroad station article that should have been redirected to our article about the Winnipeg to Churchill train. (I’m on the road and using our awful mobile editor, so it’s hard to type here and check the status of the O’Day station article). There were a bunch of these “station” articles generated for signposts.

Then there town articles created for each signpost “station”. So far, those town articles that have been redirected have been redirected to the census division.

This is the O’Day “town” article.

All these articles are problematic nullities - stories of imaginary towns and railroad stations.

I’m flexible with how we get rid of them - redirect to the census division, railroad line, or train. Or, just delete outright.

I appreciate your work on this problem.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with the town articles is that there's no "town" source; someone took the same railway point entry and created both a town and railroad station article for each one. I'm flexible on the outcome as well, but I think they should be treated as duplicate railway points rather than towns/communities. Safe travels - I'll try not to bother you with anything too complicated! –dlthewave ☎ 03:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to O'Day station or Redirect to same, or Delete all seem reasonable options. My preference order is given. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 22 August 2023 (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.