Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augusta, Indianapolis, 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric  06:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Augusta, Indianapolis, Indiana

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge and redirect to Pike Township, Marion County, Indiana. --Lockley (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:, . North America1000 01:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Source #2 in my !vote above was published in 1866 by the Adjunct General of the State of Indiana, and source #3 is The National Gazetteer of the United States of America, which was published in 1988 by the United States Government Publishing Office. The first source is published by the National Park Service, which is an agency of United States Department of the Interior, and describes the locale (in part) as
 * "... 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)
 * 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)
 * Hi : 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)
 * 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)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To further discuss whether to keep as is or merge somewhere.
 * Comment - A possible merge target would be New Augusta Historic District. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: passes WP:GEOLAND.  Dr Strauss   talk  21:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: As per above. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 06:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  12:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 03:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion would benefit from a third relist, consensus is not clear.
 * Merge The only reference on this page (other than a link to Google Maps) is to which describes the New Augusta Historic District. I support a merge. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is better than a merge per NorthAmerican. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  19:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Northamerica. Passes WP:GEOLAND.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 20:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.