Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hildebrand Village, Indiana

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hildebrand Village, Indiana

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence place actually exists. Coordinates point to a neighborhood in Shelbyville, not an unincorporated community. Being listed in a place names database does not establish notability, and all Google results are auto-generated. Reywas92^Talk 00:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real or significant coverage or notability, also agree with deletion per WP:ONEDAY.Grapefruit17 (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midway Corners, Indiana. Reywas92^Talk 01:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This place is not made up per WP:NFT cited in the above delete !votes. The USGS database entry (436180) says this place is a U6 unincorporated community. Such communities may straddle the boundaries of incorporated towns. The evidence is thin, but the USGS thinks its for real. That is often enough to survive AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't NFT, but it's preposterous to assume just a name being in the database means there should be a Wikipedia article on it. A small number of people living there decades ago without local government or recognition as for example a census-designated place does not make it notable if there are no sources covering it. Reywas92^Talk 06:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Gene93k; it has official recognition in the USGS db entry, and such places are inherently notable. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 13:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is false, please point to such consensus. This is not a place with legal recognition. Reywas92^Talk 16:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GEOLAND provides that Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable. It is of my opinion that the USGS entry and the other sources provided by User:Magnolia677 sufficiently constitute legal recognition (we do have articles on census-designated places all the time regardless of incorporation). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is FAR from a CDP, which is legally recognized and has detailed statistics. GNIS is a database of anything with a name, not legal recognition. This (map) is a neighborhood in the town I grew up in that is also called a "Populated place" but that does not mean a routine subdivision of homes is automatically notable because GNIS has it listed. You can find more information about a census tract than Hildebrand – which of the sources below shows "legal recognition", talks about history? Which passes GNG? This place was not notable even before it was a neighborhood of Shelbyville. Since when does Wikipedia simply duplicate everything in a database? There is no reason this cannot be merged to the county article – no content would be lost! Reywas92^Talk 17:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hildebrand Village was one of several communities blanked and redirected yesterday by User:Reywas92. I personally would never create a one-line stub sourced only by GNIS (just as I would never create an article about a hockey player from 1956 who played just one game in the NHL), but many well-regarded editors enjoy creating stub articles like this, and a consensus of editors at WP:GEOLAND have agreed that "populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG". So...

The National Gazetteer of the United States of America--Indiana, 1988 lists Hildebrand Village.
Shelby County identifies Hildebrand Village on its residential tax assessment.
Factfinder identifies Hildebrand Village on its maps.
The US National Weather Service returns results for Hildebrand Village.
The State of Indiana identifies Hildebrand Village on a list of municipalities.
This book identifies Hildebrand Village (the full text is not available).
Real estate databases list Hildebrand Village.
This legal document listed Hildebrand Village.
Several maps at Template:GeoTemplate list Hildebrand Village.
Shelby County, Indiana History & Families lists a few families named "Hildebrand".

While I was not able to locate any meaningful prose describing Hildebrand Village, it appears to meet the criteria listed at WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, there are families named Hildebrand! It once appeared on a map! The NWS and Trulia results are auto-generated based on the GNIS database. NONE of these sources remotely pass GNG so this is more evidence that this place is not notable and should be redirected to the county article – nothing would be lost. This doesn't mean we can't include them at Shelby County, Indiana under a "Unincorporated communities" section or "Places that appear in a database but about which no content exists". Tremont is a neighborhood in my hometown, which also has an autogenerated weather.gov page and appears on Google maps. All sorts of subdivisions and unincorporated communities appear in the GNIS database and other databases but that doesn't make them notable. Reywas92^Talk 16:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if Hildebrand Village isn't much of anything today, it may once have been a viable independent community. I expect that Hildebrand Village and the other seemigly doubtful communities in Indiana were much more of a community many years ago when the population of Indiana was much less and more rural today. Before widespread car ownership, a community was defined by its general store and post office and, if it was lucky, a railroad station. Communities can shrink or vanish if the resources they depend on are used up. Many ghost towns are abandoned mining communities, for example. In other cases, mechanization of farming meant that a smaller workforce was needed to produce the same amount of food, and better roads led to the failure of general stores and local residents switched to bigger and more efficient stores in the city. That's the shrinking away part of what happens to rural communities. The other phenomenon is that farmland near towns is bought by developers who turn it into housing for city dwellers, sometimes forming a conurbation whose inhabitants identify more with the city than the former village where their homes are located. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any reliable sources for this? Wikipedia is based on WP:Verifiability not on speculation about the history of rural America and what this place might have been. If this place is WP:Notable there should be sources on it.
Comment. Reliables source that can help identify former communities include works such as The Indiana Gazeteer, or Topographical Dictionary of the State of Indiana (third edition, 1849). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hildebrand would be on page 249 of this alphabetical gazetteer, but it's not there. Got anything better? Reywas92^Talk 18:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps Hildebrand Village was founded after 1849, when the third edition of The Indiana Gazeteer was published. I will continue to look for sources. I continue to think that something must once have existed, or it wouldn't be in GNIS. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I pointed out above, Tremont, another routine neighborhood subdivision [1], is also a "populated place" in GNIS. Something does exist in this location: a generic neighborhood with no coverage, local governance, or reliable statistics or other data on it. Just because it exists or existed and someone gave a name to the little street they lived on doesn't mean it's notable or that we need to cover it in a separate article. The ghost towns you mention still require substantive sources to pass GNG. Reywas92^Talk 20:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shelby County, . Per WP:NGEO - no reliable sources beyond listings to establish its notability or even its existence. Even the first sentence is dubious: is it "is" or "was"? It was listed in 1988 National Gazetteeer. It is not listed in two last censuses. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GEOLAND. It may not be a census-designated place, but looking at the location on a map there is clear separation between Hildebrand Village and Shelbyville, so it is not simply a suburb or a census tract. Google shows that several businesses give HV as their address, estate agents list properties at that location, and FedEx recognise it as a location. Information online is pretty thin, but I'm reasonably convinced that a bit of research in local libraries will allow this page to be expanded. The Hildebrands of Indiana go back to the early 19th century and individuals are semi-notable enough to get a few pages in book sources: Chadwick's History of Shelby County, Indiana, Shelby County, Indiana History & Families. It's highly likely that there is encyclopaedic information on the person HV is named after or their descendants. Also Family Maps of Shelby County, Indiana on Amazon Books is showing results for "Hildebrand Village" on four separate pages. I can't view those pages unfortunately, but that has to be able to provide a sentence or two at least. SpinningSpark 08:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- SpinningSpark What map are you talking about? Shelbyville's GIS (linked from their website clearly shows this neighborhood at part of the city. It is not an unincorporated community, it a routine subdivision. If you think the Hildebrands are notable that's terrific but Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Sources specifically says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability" so substantive sources about the supposed place would be appreciated, not that it appears in a local atlas. Reywas92^Talk 19:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The GIS link isn't working for me. I wasn't denying that HV is administratively part of Shelbyville. My point was that HV is physically separated from the main town. You can see this on the Bing map, and even more clearly on Gmaps (HV is not marked on Gmaps, but it finds the same location if searched for) in satellite view which shows an intervening strip of rural land. SpinningSpark 19:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, and just about every other place in Indiana that I've created that you've nominated for deletion. Evking22 (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Magnolia and thence GEOLAND, and, in passing, it would be delightful if Reywas92 could desist from further WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. Thanking ye! ——SerialNumber54129 08:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Serial Number 54129 and +1 to all he said. John from Idegon (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Sadly this is a mirrored logic tree. The onus is prove its NOT notable....Asking everyone why it is notable is useless because that means we are beholding to a standard made by another editor. DO NOT get me wrong here, I have been on both sides of this debate. I have asked GNIS to add communities back to theior DB because, yes I was able to show it was inhabited and had that name on a published map. SO, if that good enough for GNIS and we have had the extended courtesy of having an ad nauseum listing of why it is notable, why dont you enlighten ALL OF US, as 1)WHY we care about what you think because thats not the point of wikipedia. They dont care about my thoughts either, its a freaking encyclopedia and 2)WHAT sources do YOU have that are recognized that say clearly that the specific place name is utterly meaningless? BECAUSE thats is the crux, YOU have to have the DATA that says, its nothing, ESPECIALLY when there are MANY sources saying, sorry, it was an actual place...Coal town guy (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GEOLAND and, specifically, all the arguments I stated in the related AfD here. Chetsford (talk) 07:13, 15 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.