Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Woods, 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 Kept. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete, and a marginal consensus to keep, supported by sufficient evidence that a populated place exists by this name. bd2412 T 15:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Brent Woods, Indiana

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Perfect example of why we should not be using the GNIS place name database to mass-create stubs. Brent Woods is not an unincorporated community, it's part of incorporated Shelbyville, Indiana (Google Maps). It's a plain-old non-notable subdivision of less than two dozen homes (Street view). Either way, there are no substantive sources on this place and it is not notable. Reywas92Talk 17:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

has corrected the article to "subdivision". Subdivisions are not considered "inherently notable". Reywas92Talk 18:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Shelbyville, Indiana - not notable enough for a stand-alone article per WP:GNG (WP:NGEO says geographical features must meet Wikipedia's General notability guideline to be presumed notable) - Epinoia (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NGEO says no such thing. In fact, it clearly specifies such places are notable. Yet another ridiculous nomination. Enough is enough. Smartyllama (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, actually it says "Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." This is clearly a subdivision/housing development, or is not? GNIS includes such neighborhood names in their database but it is ridiculous to call them automatically notable. Reywas92Talk
 * That quote is in regards to "populated places without legal recognition", so it is of no relevance because Brent Woods is a "populated, legally recognized place", per WP:GEOLAND. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The GNIS lists countless neighborhoods and subdivisions. Are they all therefore automatically notable? Is GEOLAND broken? This is unambiguously a housing development.


 * Keep - This is a "populated, legally recognized place", per WP:GEOLAND.
 * The US Department of the Interior identifies Brent Woods as a populated place.
 * Shelby County identifies Brent Woods on its GIS map.
 * The State of Indiana identifies Brent Woods on a list of municipalities.
 * Several maps at Template:GeoTemplate list Brent Woods. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * GEOLAND also says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." The citation for [DOI USGS GNIS cites U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000-scale topographic maps; it's merely a name on a map. Searching Brent Woods on the Indiana site returns "Sorry There aren't any records that match your search criteria". [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]Talk 21:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are playing one part of the guideline against the generally recognized application of WP:GEOLAND. Legally recognized human settlements are notable and verification is generally enough to survive AfD. The USGS defines this place as "U4: Identifies a populated place wholly or substantially within the boundaries of an incorporated place with a different name; the Part of Code identifies the incorporated place. For example, Harlem and Greenwich Village, which are part of New York city, and Hollywood, which is part of Los Angeles, California, are coded U4." I'm neutral on this place, but this pattern of nominations looks WP:POINTy to me. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would certainly call Shelbyville a settlement. Brent Woods is a neighborhood/subdivision/housing development within that settlement and would need sources beyond a verification of existence on a map. This "generally recognized application" is apparently not consistent with explicitly stated examples in the guideline and a specific statement on use of maps. Based on the examples given and discussion establishing the guideline I do not believe it is intended to exempt neighborhoods from sources beyond simple existence in on a map. Reywas92Talk 01:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - "This is really more of a Shelbyville idea" FOARP (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:GEOFEAT, WP:GEOLAND, WP:NGEO.-- PA TH  SL OP U  14:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:GEOLAND This is a "populated, legally recognized place. ...such places are notable  Lubbad85   (☎) 12:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per GEOLAND. And a general comment on all these Indiana AFDs we have had recently; in the case of non-notable people and orgs, I am in favour of eradicating them with vigour, but populated places are just the sort of thing that an encyclopaedia should be including.  Five pillars explicitly states that we are a gazetteer.  Just because you can nominate something, does not mean you should nominate it.  Some common sense could be applied instead. SpinningSpark 00:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We should be including all cities and towns, not all housing developments and subdivisions. Common sense would imply that when GEOLAND says "Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods", this housing development would be included in that category! This is a massive misinterpretation of a poorly-worded SNG; by "recognized populated place" it clearly did not include housing developments since that's explicitly in the other section. Applying common sense would not result in permanent sub-stub articles about a dozen homes that make up a subdivision within a city, about which sources beyond a name on a map do not exist. Just because you can mass-create micro-articles from context-free results in a database doesn't mean should do that either. The article remains embarrassingly incorrect because it is in fact incorporated. Reywas92Talk 19:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "This housing development would be included in that category". No it wouldn't.  This is a "populated, legally recognized place".  Magnolia677 (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. The interpretation that a subdivision inside an incorporated community is a "legally recognized place" because it can be found on a sufficiently detailed map or in a geographical database is unsupportable and would render the WP:NGEO guideline virtually useless. The only sources cited in the article or in this discussion are of this type. By the explicit wording of the guideline, subdivisions "could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources". No such coverage has been shown or even claimed. --RL0919 (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2019 (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.