Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midway Corners, 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. Weighing the policy based arguments and the counter arguments for the delete !votes, it's pretty clear that consensus is to keep this article. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 07:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Midway Corners, Indiana

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence place actually exists – Google results are all auto-generated. Listing in a names database does not establish notability. Reywas92Talk 23:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

See also Articles for deletion/Hildebrand Village, Indiana, another of the mass-created stubs. Reywas92Talk 01:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is the same as This, they were written by the same editor and without question, do not meet WP:GNG.Grapefruit17 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Two sentences does not an encyclopedic article make WP:2S - according to WP:NGEO, places must meet WP:GNG - as there is no "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" then notablility not established - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please correct me if I am in error, but the exact quote you added cannot be found at WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - at WP:NOTE, the first line of the General notability guideline WP:GNG reads, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - Epinoia (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In your comment above you wrote "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and placed it in quotation marks, which made it appear you were quoting one of the two guidelines mentioned in the same sentence. Am I correct in saying this was in fact your own personal interpretation (in quotation marks)?  Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - the General notability guideline is restated in other guidelines, sometimes with slight variations, for example, WP:BASIC says, "have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" - using the word "multiple" which is not in the original General notability guideline, but is implied by the plural "sources" - but except for slight wording variations they all say the same thing and the General notability guideline applies here too - Epinoia (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - A consensus of editors at WP:GEOLAND have agreed 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". The following sources recognize Midway Corners:
 * The US Department of the Interior recognizes Midway Corners.
 * Shelby County identifies Midway Corners on its GIS map.
 * Factfinder identifies Midway Corners on its maps.
 * The US National Weather Service returns results for Midway Corners.
 * Real estate databases list Midway Corners.
 * Most maps at Template:GeoTemplate identify Midway Corners as a settlement. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * These are all automatically generated from the GNIS database and do not establish notability; I can find my own non-notable "subdivision or housing development" on all of thes maps too Search "Tremont, IN". The autogenerated NWS link says "2 Miles NNW Shelbyville IN" and the Trulia link is for Hildebrand Village. GEOLAND says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability". "Presumed notable" is based on the belief that substantive sources can be found, but none of these have any substantive content. Reywas92Talk 18:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND per above. Smartyllama (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 per GEOLAND. GEOLAND describes inherent notability requiring (except in the cases of census tracts and maps) nothing more than mere proof of legally recognized existence as opposed to the substantial, in-depth coverage required under the GNG. We can demonstrate Midway Corners exists and is legally recognized by its inclusion in the National Gazetteer of the United States of America, an official publication of the Geological Survey and the Board of Geographic Names. It's good to give scrutiny to small, unincorporated places to ensure we don't perpetuate a WP:HOAX - and mere inclusion on a Google Map result should be insufficient to prove existence - but this doesn't appear to apply here Chetsford (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Except GEOLAND mentions "presumed to be notable" not "inherent notability". "Presumed" means "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article", but where is the significant coverage? Even insignificant coverage? This could be mentioned in St. Joseph County, Indiana but does not need a separate article. The Gazetteer simply means that it is a name on a map, perhaps as a neighborhood, not legal recognition as a defined area. Reywas92Talk 01:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "but where is the significant coverage?" - Significance is self-evident since GEOLAND establishes the existing consensus of the community as to how it defines the word "significant" for purpose of geographic notability, that being the mere existence of legal recognition. (Your confusion may arise from the fact that you've linked to the General Notability Guidelines.) Through WP:RS we have established this is a place that is recognized (which is not a synonym of "sanctioned" or "authorized") by a legally constituted authority of a sovereign state, namely the United States Board of Geographic Names; in other words, it is "legally recognized" (again, not "legally sanctioned" nor "legally authorized"). Ergo, the definition the community has set for significance has been met. We cannot apply any more stringent definition of the word "significance" other than a "populated, legally recognized place" within a single AfD. If a better definition is needed, existing policy will have to be overturned and this is not the proper venue to do so.
 * " This could be mentioned in St. Joseph County, Indiana but does not need a separate article." Simple declaratory statements of individual editors as to what does or does not "need" articles are not valid at AfD. This is not a vote-counting exercise. All arguments must be based in policy as it currently exists. If the policy is flawed, an argument to overturn it will have to be presented elsewhere and, if the policy is amended, the AfD revisited. Chetsford (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I grew up in a subdivision called Tremont that has an identical GNIS listing to Midway Corners. Is my little neighborhood with an HOA "legally recognized" and therefore notable? GNIS lists countless numbers of these. Reywas92Talk 21:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "I grew up in a subdivision called Tremont that has ..." While an interesting anecdote, I'm unqualified to provide analysis of your early life and childhood so must limit my commentary to the subject of this AfD. WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST may or may not be useful to answering your question about the status of your childhood home, otherwise, you might be able to solicit an answer in WP:TEAHOUSE. Best of luck - Chetsford (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per GEOLAND. ——  SerialNumber  54129  07:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:GEOFEAT-- PA TH  SL OP U  07:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets notability criteria as per WP:GEOLAND. Spyder212 (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment why did you relist this almost a full day before the seven days had expired? Consensus has clearly emerged in the last 24 hours or so, and it would likely have been closed as keep if you waited the right time. Smartyllama (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per GEOLAND. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:04, 22 May 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.