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. T. Canens ( talk) 03:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Hubbard, Indiana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coordinates point to an intersection with nothing nearby, no evidence this is a real community, no sources found about this "place". Listing in a database of place names does not establish notability. Reywas92 ^Talk 19:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 21:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Daask ( talk) 10:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND. Yet another ridiculous nomination of places in Indiana for seemingly no valid reason. Smartyllama ( talk) 15:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• "Presumed notability" means that substantive sources are expected to be available, but none are to be found here so notability is not actually established. Do you have any evidence this is actually a "populated place" besides a context-free database entry? GEOLAND says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability". Where are the substantive sources still required under "On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability."? Reywas92Talk 18:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a "populated, legally recognized place", per WP:GEOLAND:
  • The US Department of the Interior identifies Hubbard as a populated place.
  • The State of Indiana identifies Hubbard on a list of municipalities.
  • Several maps at Template:GeoTemplate list Hubbard. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - WP:NGEO says that "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable" - meeting GNG means having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - this place lacks significant coverage (mentioned in a list or appearing on a map is a passing reference, not significant coverage) - WP:GEOLAND says that places without legal recognition (like this unincorporated community) can be considered notable "given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" - WP:GEOLAND also says that places may be notable "because notability encompasses their entire history", but this place has no notable history - just existing does not establish notability - the article does not meet WP:GNG, therefore delete - also, "Two sentences does not an encyclopedic article make," and "All articles that are only one or two sentences long should be either expanded or deleted." per WP:2S - Epinoia ( talk) 16:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

WP:GEOLAND states that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". The notability of these places does not need to be established; a consensus of editors have agreed that if these are legally recognized populated places, they are notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Hubbard has been listed on US government records as a populated place for the past 40 years, and appears on countless maps. This would be similar to a one-term do-nothing US senator from the 1920s, where a Wikipedia editor may only find one reliable source to support this person's role as a senator. Their Wikipedia biography might be just one line long, but editors have agreed that all US senators (like all populated, legally recognized places) are notable. Magnolia677 ( talk) 09:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• DELETE - 'Presumed' but not guaranteed. It is not an exemption from notability requirements. WP:NGEO explicitly states that the notability of 'places' can be questioned. It makes a distinction between verifiability and notability. The sources noted above fail on notability. Nothing in the page implies notability. I don't really see this 'place' as being populated, for that matter. For the presumption to be valid, there should still be sources discussing the place. Those don't exist (or at least, have not been cited). Finally, we should also consider WP:COMMONSENSE. How does this perfunctory type of page inform readers? That there is a name on a map, but nobody knows or cares what it is? Have a county page that lists the ghost corners and hamlets. Otherwise a reader could endlessly go through the infinite list of 'place names' of Indiana but never actually find anything out about any of them. ogenstein ( talk) 04:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Where does it say that? Saying these things doesn't make them true. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Buckle up, it's gonna be a long ride.

It's right there in the text. From WP:NGEO:

A geographical area, location, place or other object is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are, in the case of artificial features, independent of the bodies which have a vested interest in them.

Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question.

And from WP:COMMONSENSE

Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. Being able to articulate "common sense" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't include a bunch of policy shortcuts. The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment.

Please also see this reference as well, which deals specifically with small place articles: WP:CL-RULE.

At this point, does this article have any encyclopedic content? It does not. It is merely a database entry from the USGS wrapped in a template. So wikipedia does no service to readers with this page and no reader is better informed. If you were interested in studying the geographical history of St. Joseph's County, this page (which you can't really call an article) actually makes it a worse experience because you would have to go through 38 place names in the county, of which maybe four have more than a sentence. Indiana probably has on the order of 2000 'populated places', and that's one state, in one country. Should someone develop a bot to create all these ghost pages? All of the information on the Hubbard page is already on the Olive Township, St. Joseph County, Indiana page.

Consider as well, the pages for Terre Coupee and Hamilton. These are apparently the same place, which was originally named Terre Coupee and then renamed to Hamilton. So it is actually misleading to say that Terre Coupee 'is' a place. It 'was' a place between 1828 and 1837. Having these pages creates confusion.

Please also see this from WP:ARTICLE:

A Wikipedia article or entry is a page on this site that has encyclopedic information on it. A well-written encyclopedia article:

• identifies a notable topic,
• summarizes that topic comprehensively,
• is written in an encyclopedic style of language,
• has been well copyedited,
• contains references to reliable sources, and
• contains wikilinks to and is linked to by other articles or article sections about related topics.

As I see it, this page meets the first requirement but none of the others.

Please also see this from WP:MISTAKES:

Articles which are too short to have encyclopedic value. Articles must establish the context and notability of the subject. If an article does not contain enough content to keep it from being classified as a mere stub, then it may qualify for speedy deletion.

Please also see this from WP:STUB:

A stub is an article that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion.

And then this:

If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article.

And finally, what does WP:NOTABILITY have to tell us:

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.

And if we look at it from the other perspective, what does WP:GEOLAND say? Only this: "typically presumed to be notable". And note that NGEO encompasses GEOLAND and addresses this directly.

That does not exempt these pages from every other guideline in wikipedia. I think it means that a subject is eligible for a page despite lacking significance relative to others. Does it exempt editors from having to think or exercise judgement? I don't think any guideline does that. I feel it is being used as a silver bullet.

Afterword: I should add that I did spend hours trying to find something about this 'place' referred to as Hubbard. I did find some interesting pages that cover a range of years and provide the names of many people and places but no place called Hubbard, so even people who knew the area and were interested in preserving its history had nothing to say. Thanks for hearing me out.

• St. Joseph County Map 1945
• History of Olive Township, St. Joseph County
• New Carlisle: Story of Our Town

ogenstein ( talk) 18:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Wikipedia is a gazetteer and unincorporated communities are considered notable. I added a citation to the article: Hubbard Topo Map in St. Joseph IN-thank you RFD ( talk) 15:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I have expanded the article to show that Hubbard was a station on the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad. The settlement was probably named for the Hubbard's of the Haven Hubbard Home, early setters in Olive Township who owned a large tract of land to the northwest. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Can you please clarify which page this station reference is on? From what I can see on the CSS timetable, there were stops at New Carlisle and Olive (to the west) and Warren (to the east). I don't see any stops between. Hopefully I didn't miss something obvious. Nice find.

And as regards your comments on the Hubbards of the area, I agree that there was a prominent family in the township but as you point out, known connections are distant from the designated coordinates and if their buildings were noteworthy and easily found then surely a named community would be as well. I did searches for names (initially R Hubbard, and then Ransom Hubbard, based upon seeing the name in a result in a google books clipping from 'A History of St. Joseph County, Indiana', and then Jonathan Hubbard who was apparently the first to settle in the area and lived in Terre Coupee around when it became Hamilton) but came up dry.

I should add that this is making for an odd way to spend Victoria Day but thinking about the Hubbards of the township got me thinking some more and I went back to google books to look at the snippet of the history book. There was a tantalizing fragment of text saying, "The existence of this old town is so completely obliterated that Judge Hubbard, who was born on Terre Coupee prairie, doubts whether any one on the prairie can point out its site." I couldn't help but wonder if there was a connection. Well, there wasn't, but it turns out that the book is in the public domain, having been written in 1908 and so I was able to see that the reference was for a different place. I think it could be a good resource for many of these northern Indiana stubs, and within the text, it suggests that there may be similar books about nearby counties and townships as well. That said, while it discusses three generations of Hubbards, it does not mention a location with such a name, so I'm still a 'delete'. For those interested, here is the link I found:

A History of St. Joseph County, Indiana

ogenstein ( talk) 21:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Mothman: Page 15. Enjoy your holiday! Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Magnolia677: Got it. Thanks. ogenstein ( talk) 22:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND. Not sure why one would nominate this. Lubbad85 ( ☎) 03:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment But it fails WP:NGEO, which is a higher requirement, plus numerous other requirements as well. It's not likely to ever pass them. ogenstein ( talk) 04:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep, or at least merge per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Spinning Spark 14:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Per Magnolia677, it meets WP:GEOLAND. Britishfinance ( talk) 21:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:37, 24 May 2019 (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.