Canonchet, Rhode Island: – dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rhode Island .  – dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It may be notable for Canonchet Brook Preseve or Canonchet Farm .  Here's a reference for the farm: https://canonchet.org/documents/2023_04_30_projo_john_kostrzewa_canonchet.pdf There's also a Lake Canonchet , U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 23 , There are some archaeological sites nearby: Gage, Mary; Gage, James (2017-03-31).  Land of a Thousand Cairns: Revival of Old style Ceremonies .  Powwow River Books.  ISBN 978-0-9816141-2-0 .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I"m a bit confused. None of these sources refer to Canonchet as a town. Do we have a source that actually refers to Canonchet as it's defined in the article? Skipple ☎ 19:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Hopkinton, Rhode Island#Geography . The mentions I've found of it are mostly tangential (see for example [21] [22] [23] ) and it does not seem to meet WP:NGEO . Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 23:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Canonchet (sometimes known as Cononchet) is a real place, and we know this because it had a station on the Wood River Branch Railroad (though this station wasn't actually in Canonchet, just nearby along the railroad's route. The book Two Tickets on the Wood River Train states on page 12 that it was a distinct village with several mills, near Ashville Pond. Based on my reading that meets NGEO. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 11:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete This is an odd one from the GNIS/topo point of view: the entry has the usual source statement for initial round spots, but in fact it does not appear on any topo until it was back-entered from GNIS sometime after 2010; this implies that it was entered from a gazetteer source. The topos and aerials in fact show nothing that could be mistaken for a town or village. The rail station tends to argue that this is just a general locale, being at some distance from the supposed spot, and we have learned over the years of reviewing these that station does not imply a settlement. We need a much better source than what we have, especially in light of the mapping evidence against the place. Mangoe ( talk ) 04:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're misstating my comment. The book specifically states that Canonchet was a distinct village with several mills. The station was a bit away from Canonchet because the railroad didn't directly enter the village itself, but a siding and later a station building were constructed to serve the mills there and any passenger or mail traffic. this source mentions Canonchet had two mills involved in producing "fishlines and twines". An article in The Day [24] describes Canonchet as a "town" and states it was heavily damaged by lightning in 1916.  Given this verifiably was a populated place, deletion is not appropriate.  It should be kept or redirected to Hopkinton.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 14:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 05:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  04:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep :  clearly notable, i did the work to improve the article, you heathens :)-- Milowent • has spoken 14:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - THIS 1894 article deals with a legal battle to break up the Canonchet estate involving an ex-Governor of RI.  It seems that Canonchet was the name of a tribal leader of one of the indigenous peoples and the name pops up in numerous contexts in Rhode Island newspapers.  Carrite ( talk ) 15:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Wikipedia:HEY .  Djflem ( talk ) 20:03, 28 May 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.

Discussion outcome: keep