Bengal, Minnesota : This was a wide spot between the tracks as far back as I can see, and there's no sign it was a settlement as well.  Mangoe ( talk ) 19:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This one's easy.  BENGAL a station of the Great Northern Railway in section 1 of Goodland Township — Upham, Warren (2001).  "Bengal".  Minnesota Place Names: A Geographical Encyclopedia .  Minnesota Historical Society Press.  p. 260.  ISBN 9780873513968 .  From the report submitted the Commission finds that Bengal is a station on the line of the Great Northern Railway Company situated between the stations of Kelly Lake and Swan River, Minnesota; — 51st Annual Report of the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Minnesota .  1922.  p. 75.  Uncle G ( talk ) 21:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two stops down on the timetable is Goodland, Minnesota .   Wikipedia once again lies that this is an "unincorporated community".  Upham 2001 , p. 263 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUpham2001 ( help ) tells us that it was initially a village called Gardner and became Goodland town of Goodland Township, Minnesota .   Just in case you were going there next.   ☺ Uncle G ( talk ) 21:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete nothing found except for the nearby lake.   Not a notable location, and the railroad isn't even there anymore, it looks like, from satellite views.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 02:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Bengal was a platted community founded in 1914.  While there was definitely a train station there, there was also a small community.  I found census records for 1920 and 1940.  I've added these details , along with the original 1914 plat map (there was also a later second addition to the community); luckily, that's all been preserved in county records and state and federal census filings.  I also found discussion of an influenza outbreak which hit Bengal hard in 1919.  Even though all sources indicate Bengal ended up being a bit of a dud, there are reliable sources showing this was a community/town.  I'll add more sources tomorrow, but it's late here tonight.  Firsfron of Ronchester 10:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article has been very well WP:HEYed for such a small community.  Passes GNG.  SportingFlyer T · C 02:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per expansion.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Itasca County article.  The site is unincorporated, and therefore lacking a government.  QED it's not legally recognized and as such cannot not be presumed notable per WP:GEOLAND.  The material that has been presented in support of keeping it doesn't meet the standard of sustained coverage or verifiable evidence which is that "evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest,".  So the article is not compliant with WP:NRV or WP:Sustained.  No article is irrevocably and permanently notable, and merger is easily reversed if the place ever becomes notable.  We can't just keep hanging onto these perma stubs because someday they may be the "GOAT".  James.folsom ( talk ) 00:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Uh, it's pretty easily verified with the coverage already in the article and WP:SUSTAINED applies to events, not towns, especially considering the sources in the article span decades.  It's also no longer a stub.  SportingFlyer T · C 01:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep per SportingFlyer and others above.  A place need not be presently incorporated to have historical geographic significance.  BD2412 T 14:51, 27 December 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