Delete. May be a valid destination, but more than likely not. User:(WT-en) Xltel has added enough content to convert vandalism to a real article, so I'm OK with keeping it. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:53, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
Delete. It's a town[1] and they have a state park, but doesn't appear to have any where to sleep... This ones getting closer to what we're looking for... (WT-en) Majnoona 21:26, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
Keep. Just voting on principal here. I've read the deletion policy twice and don't see how this fits. It's a valid town. Policy doesn't seem to require that one can sleep there. One could sleep in a nearby town and visit the place anyways. Yeah, it's a little pissant place of little interest, but is there policy that covers it? What if someone's RVing or hiking around and wants to know about this place that's coming up? (WT-en) OldPine 13:09, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
I'm switching to Keep on this one. You're right Old Pine, there's room for all towns! (WT-en) Majnoona 14:14, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
If this were Wikiatlas with a goal of documenting every settlement on the planet, or Wikiyellowpages with a goal of providing every community with a directory of restaurants in their local dialing area, I might find that scenario compelling, but it's not. Not every individual town is a travel destination. Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:00, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
Keep, strongly felt. Far smaller towns than this one (i.e., about half of North Dakota) have been written up and kept without demur. Would we even be considering deleting this if it hadn't been created originally by you-know-who? A page's origins don't count against it; even a blind hog can find an acorn, as the saying goes. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:34, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
Yes, this article is listed here because of he-who-shall-not-be-named. The North Dakota articles were created by someone whose goal was to create a good travel guide about North Dakota, and that user at least went to some trouble to provide a minimum of information about each place. In this case, unless a transformation similar to what was done for White Mountain occurs I think we might as well delete this one as vandalism, and if someone with better intentions wants to re-create the article in the future there would be nothing stopping them from doing so. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:22, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
We're at our 14 days, and to the extent that there's consensus, I think the consensus is to keep it. Move to the obvious pages coming, unless someone makes an argument that tips the consensus again. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:25, 30 July 2006 (EDT)
