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.
Neighborhoods are generally not notable unless there it sufficient independent coverage in RS to meet GNG. Otherwise, this neighborhood should be mentioned in
Pike Township, Marion County, Indiana. No objection to Merge/Redirect.
MB 01:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ad Orientem (
talk) 23:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep – This historic former
village meets
WP:GEOLAND as a legally-recognized populated place, as per
this reliable source, as well as other sources that attest to it being a legally-recognized place:
[1],
[2]. North America1000 01:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
NA1000, I don't see how those sources prove that this is "legally recognized"--I think you are reaching too far, and you're probably safe enough already when arguing GNG.
Drmies (
talk) 01:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
I interpret "formerly populated" places to be things that are no longer populated, like "ghost towns". This place is still populated and it is now a neighborhood of a larger place. If it had sufficient notability for a stand-alone article, it certainly should have one. But otherwise, a neighborhood is covered under the "legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it" per GEOLAND. And it turns out that there is already a separate article on the
New Augusta Historic District, so in this case any content in this article not already in the NRHP article, if any, should be merged there.
MB 02:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
... a small village called Augusta developed at the corner of present-day 71st and Michigan Road. With plenty of travelers using Michigan Road, the small village grew to have general stores, a post office, and other essentials."
These come across as valid, legally-authoritative sources to me. For example, the United States Government Publishing Office "prints and binds documents produced by and for the federal government" (italic emphasis mine). North America1000 02:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
But this doesn't address my comment at all. It may have been a village at one time, but now it is part of Indianapolis. There are dozens or maybe hundreds of former villages that are now part of NYC and they don't all have individual articles. See
Blissville, Queens as an example.
MB 02:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Hi
MB: You state in your comment above that "a neighborhood is covered under the "legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it" per GEOLAND". However, this phrasing is under point #2 of WP:GEOLAND for Populated places without legal recognition (italic emphasis mine). Per my !vote and commentary above, I view this former village and neighborhood as falling under point #1, for Populated, legally recognized places (italic emphasis mine). North America1000 02:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
This IS a populated place without legal recognition, in my view. It may have been legally recognized as a village before it was swallowed up by Indianapolis, but it then lost that status. It is now just a neighborhood of the city, which is not legally recognized. This section of GEOLAND is often interpreted differently by different editors.
MB 03:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To further discuss whether to keep as is or merge somewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment When I originally nominated this, I was unaware of
New Augusta Historic District. Since this topic is clearly notable due to its historic designation and is covered in that article, we don't need two articles on the same place. The article should be merged into
New Augusta Historic District.MB 15:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)reply
It may not be the same place. The
New Augusta Historic District article states that the New Augusta Historic District "...is located east of Augusta", although this is presently unsourced in the article. If the New Augusta Historic District is located east of Augusta, Augusta is not the New Augusta Historic District. North America1000 02:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
You are right. The historic district is "New Augusta" and is located 1.5 miles east of "Old Augusta" (the topic of this article). They are different places. So I am back to "Old Augusta", which was apparently mostly abandoned as the people/businesses there followed the railroad east in 1852, being merged into either
Indianapolis or
Pike Township, Marion County, Indiana.
MB 03:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge The only reference on this page (other than a link to Google Maps) is to
[3] which describes the New Augusta Historic District. I support a merge.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 03:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep As per the evidence given in this AfD, this is a formally recognized albeit former place and there is sufficient information (at least the location and one fact) to have a separate article.
Unscintillating (
talk) 15:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion would benefit from a third relist, consensus is not clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201talk 02:08, 6 July 2017 (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.
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.
Neighborhoods are generally not notable unless there it sufficient independent coverage in RS to meet GNG. Otherwise, this neighborhood should be mentioned in
Pike Township, Marion County, Indiana. No objection to Merge/Redirect.
MB 01:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ad Orientem (
talk) 23:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep – This historic former
village meets
WP:GEOLAND as a legally-recognized populated place, as per
this reliable source, as well as other sources that attest to it being a legally-recognized place:
[1],
[2]. North America1000 01:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
NA1000, I don't see how those sources prove that this is "legally recognized"--I think you are reaching too far, and you're probably safe enough already when arguing GNG.
Drmies (
talk) 01:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
I interpret "formerly populated" places to be things that are no longer populated, like "ghost towns". This place is still populated and it is now a neighborhood of a larger place. If it had sufficient notability for a stand-alone article, it certainly should have one. But otherwise, a neighborhood is covered under the "legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it" per GEOLAND. And it turns out that there is already a separate article on the
New Augusta Historic District, so in this case any content in this article not already in the NRHP article, if any, should be merged there.
MB 02:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
... a small village called Augusta developed at the corner of present-day 71st and Michigan Road. With plenty of travelers using Michigan Road, the small village grew to have general stores, a post office, and other essentials."
These come across as valid, legally-authoritative sources to me. For example, the United States Government Publishing Office "prints and binds documents produced by and for the federal government" (italic emphasis mine). North America1000 02:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
But this doesn't address my comment at all. It may have been a village at one time, but now it is part of Indianapolis. There are dozens or maybe hundreds of former villages that are now part of NYC and they don't all have individual articles. See
Blissville, Queens as an example.
MB 02:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Hi
MB: You state in your comment above that "a neighborhood is covered under the "legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it" per GEOLAND". However, this phrasing is under point #2 of WP:GEOLAND for Populated places without legal recognition (italic emphasis mine). Per my !vote and commentary above, I view this former village and neighborhood as falling under point #1, for Populated, legally recognized places (italic emphasis mine). North America1000 02:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
This IS a populated place without legal recognition, in my view. It may have been legally recognized as a village before it was swallowed up by Indianapolis, but it then lost that status. It is now just a neighborhood of the city, which is not legally recognized. This section of GEOLAND is often interpreted differently by different editors.
MB 03:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To further discuss whether to keep as is or merge somewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment When I originally nominated this, I was unaware of
New Augusta Historic District. Since this topic is clearly notable due to its historic designation and is covered in that article, we don't need two articles on the same place. The article should be merged into
New Augusta Historic District.MB 15:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)reply
It may not be the same place. The
New Augusta Historic District article states that the New Augusta Historic District "...is located east of Augusta", although this is presently unsourced in the article. If the New Augusta Historic District is located east of Augusta, Augusta is not the New Augusta Historic District. North America1000 02:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
You are right. The historic district is "New Augusta" and is located 1.5 miles east of "Old Augusta" (the topic of this article). They are different places. So I am back to "Old Augusta", which was apparently mostly abandoned as the people/businesses there followed the railroad east in 1852, being merged into either
Indianapolis or
Pike Township, Marion County, Indiana.
MB 03:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge The only reference on this page (other than a link to Google Maps) is to
[3] which describes the New Augusta Historic District. I support a merge.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 03:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep As per the evidence given in this AfD, this is a formally recognized albeit former place and there is sufficient information (at least the location and one fact) to have a separate article.
Unscintillating (
talk) 15:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion would benefit from a third relist, consensus is not clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201talk 02:08, 6 July 2017 (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.