Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruskin, Minnesota

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 keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 04:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruskin, Minnesota

A7: Article about a real place, which does not assert notability. Elm-39 (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, real place, A7 does not apply. Individual AfD is not the place to address whether or not places are inherently notable - current practice is that they are. DuncanHill (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So small, unimportant towns are of great historical significance yet small, important people are not? Brilliant! Elm-39 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm not saying that it is of "great historical significance", just that we generally regard real places as being sufficiently notable for inclusion. I can think of at least one small important person with an article :) DuncanHill (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep cities, towns, villages, and hamlets regardless of how small are inherently notable. A7, for a place? no way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the original nominator removed the Afd tags from the article - is this a withdrawal of the nomination? Any way, at this point, any deletion would be out of process and the discussion seems to be WP:SNOWing toward keep, would any passing admin please close this debate. I would, but I've participated... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and cane this just proves that any article can be put up for deletion by zealous editors. travb (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't qualify as a CSD A7, but what's there to be said about this community? About all that can be said is that it has a place name and that it used to be a stop on the Milwaukee Road until 1980. The history of Rice County on the Rice County web site doesn't say anything about Ruskin. Since it's so hard to find anything about this community, maybe a merge to Walcott Township, Rice County, Minnesota or Richland Township, Rice County, Minnesota would be appropriate, but since the community is located on County Road 23 (the boundary between townships), who knows which one it's in? There's a problem with reliable sources here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it doesn't have any mention on the MnDOT state highway map. It looks like it used to be a station on a long-abandoned Milwaukee Road branch line between Faribault and Zumbro Falls. I'm having trouble justifying keeping this article based on what little information is available. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to have been a school as well. [1]. I think the USGS is generally reliable. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Small ≠ not-notable. See for example Tenney, Minnesota, population 6. -Atmoz (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, longstanding consensus is that communities (as long as we can verify that they exist) are notable. No question that this exists, and I don't see any reason why this should be treated any differently from other similar communities. As far as no-other-sources, wouldn't it be likely that there would be local printed sources about Ruskin? If we were to get someone with more sources, we could improve the article; as it is, it's a decent stub. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Real places are inhernently notable. Edward321 (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2009 (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.