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. If we take GEOLAND to be the valid guideline for this article, then only criterion 2 applies: Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG (my emphasis). Whether the place exists or not is immaterial; if there’s sufficient reliable sources that talk about it as a concept or an actual place, then it passes the GNG. I don’t see why WP:USCITIES applies as it’s not an incorporated place. Besides, that’s a style guide, not a notability guideline.

This then means that it’s simply a question of whether the sources provided are reliable. Whether the place exists or not is immaterial; if there’s sufficient reliable sources then it passes the GNG. The article has four sources that talk about the concept or plan of Bellevue in great detail, and they certainly seem to be reliable. AfD precedence would easily say four is plenty of sources for the GNG. GedUK  14:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bellevue, Mississippi[edit]

Bellevue, Mississippi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This place does not yet exist. It has no listing on GNIS, and media articles describe it as a "proposed city". It appears to be someplace around this location: 31°18′36″N 89°30′00″W / 31.309906°N 89.500093°W / 31.309906; -89.500093. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 05:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So, is a proposed city lesser than the thousands of unincorporated communities that will never be cities? I hardly see any reason to say that this place "doesn't exist" - it obviously does, and it's got a name now. Even if incorporation fails, this name will almost certainly be remembered and used for this place, and will very likely become a census designated place. I hardly think it's absence from infrequently updated databases tells us much. There's a lot of good reasons why populated places are assumed notable. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, Magnolia is correct about the location. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a reliable source (eg. census data or other US government source) to support the existence of "Bellevue, Mississippi" as a federally-recognized "place", be it a city, town, hamlet, unincorporated community, or post office? I wasn't able to find any source to support its existence, and even GNIS (the online database for the U.S. Department of the Interior) doesn't recognize it. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Who cares? Why should it matter? What about the various countries in the world that don't have an organized system of placenames? Seriously, the standard is reliable third-party sources, not listings in particular databases. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It matters because having multiple reliable third party references is what qualifies a place for an article, lacking one of the automatic qualifiers, that being a post office at some time, or listing in the GNIS. Every place that may be or wants to be does not get an article. Wikipedia would be overrun with real estate development articles if it did. What is needed are reliable sources that state it exists, not that it may exist or some folks want it to exist. See WP:GEOLAND. John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, there's a huge difference between a real estate development and a city attempting to incorporate. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Searching via the handy links above turned up about a half dozen local articles about the politics surrounding the possible incorporation of this place. None, nada, discussing its existence. Never mind the basis of most deletion discussions, notability, which isn't here either; this fails what is probably our most basic policy, verifiability. If this is incorrect, Oiyarbepsy, by all means produce some reliable sources that verify that. But to be honest, your WP:ILIKEIT arguments are getting boreing. Cite some sources, base some arguement in policy, or please stop wasting our time. --John from Idegon (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It also is not on the official Mississippi state highway map.--John from Idegon (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Appears to be a legitimate name for an unincorporated area which doesn't overlap another name. The incorporation effort has been going on long enough that it will be notable even if it does not succeed. If you look at this 1965 USGS Hattieburg SW map here [1], the community appears to be located near where the Bellevue Church is indicated. And this article [2] appears to show a picture of a Bellevue highway sign.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The first article cited doesn't even mention Bellevue. The second article is about Bellevue, the city that doesn't yet exist. If the article is deleted, it can always be re-created once Bellevue becomes a real place. Likewise, Bellevue may be notable due to its frequent mention in reliable sources (like Atlantis), though I doubt there are enough sources to take this article to that point, and it won't be listed as a "place". Magnolia677 (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a notable community place name in the Hattiesburg area, in a growing section of that metropolitan area. As I noted, the one article shows a highway sign for Bellevue. Other articles refer to the existing community of that name.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if the photo in the article found by Milowent shows an official highway sign, then the place officially exists which is all that is needed for a populated place to pass WP:GEOLAND. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Where in WP:GEOLAND does it say that? Also, where was the photo taken? It looks like a Photoshop picture made for the article cited. Because there is so little to prove this place exists, surely the "official highway sign" would be visible in Google streetview. What are the geo-coordinates of this sign (for a place that doesn't even appear on Google maps)? Magnolia677 (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can give reasonable proof that the sign is a fake in regard to this community, I will withdraw my !vote. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The photo credits show it was taken by a photographer employed by the Hattiesburg American. I am sorry Magnolia, but you are simply ignoring the actual available sourcing showing that a "Bellevue" community currently exists; there is also a proposal to incorporate a city for an area greater than, but including, that community.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding link to WHLT article, [3], "For years the Bellevue area has identified itself as a community within Lamar County. Now a group is looking to make Bellevue the Pine Belt’s newest city."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You stated: "if the photo in the article...shows an official highway sign, then the place officially exists which is all that is needed for a populated place to pass WP:GEOLAND". Again, where in WP:GEOLAND does it state this? Magnolia677 (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable". Are you saying that being legally (it's by definition illegal per the highway department to put up a fake sign) recognized fails WP:GEOLAND? Please explain. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Every article written about "Bellevue, Mississippi" acknowledges that this place does not yet exit; it is a "future city". Even the website for the "City of Bellevue" calls it "the future City of Bellevue", and that website also includes a link to a petition to create this city and "the name of the municipal corporation shall be City of Bellevue, Mississippi".

"Bellevue, Mississippi" is not found on the state map, on Google maps, or on topographic maps, and it is not listed in GNIS (which already lists over 50 places in the United States called "Bellevue"). It is not listed with the United States Census Bureau, and "Bellevue, Mississippi" is not found on any federal or state record.

User:Milowent has stated that this photo of a sign for "Bellevue" validates the existence of this place according to WP:GEOLAND. This random photo was included in this article which also described "a push to create the City of Bellevue". Inquiries about the location of this sign were deflected. Could it be here, in Bellvue, Colorado? Or was it taken here, in Bellevue, Texas?

If Bellevue, Mississippi does indeed exist, provide some proof besides a random road sign and bunch of articles that each state this place doesn't yet exist. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Take a deep breath, friend! A photographer for the Hattieburg American did not fly to other Bellevues to take this picture to defeat your AfD nomination. I noted earlier that a Bellevue Church exists at the main intersection of the proposed city does appear on a 1960s USGS map. "Every article written about "Bellevue, Mississippi" acknowledges that this place does not yet exist" Wrong; it is an existing unincorporated community, there are at least 20 articles that could be cited to show this. Businesses don't move [4] to imaginary places.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither Twitter nor a road sign are the reliable, published sources required to show notability. And again, per geoland, without incorporation, some official recognition is required. A sign (there is nothing to indicate it is any sort of official sign, but even assuming it is.....) is not official recognition. By that logic, every DNR boat ramp should have an article, as they are officially recognized by a sign. Neighborhoods, which is the best you can argue this is, are taken on a case by case basis. This one is TOOSOON. John from Idegon (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GEOLAND never uses the words incorporated or unincorporated. Places recognized by the state as unincorporated are by definition legally recognized. Many unincorporates have their own zip code and post office. This appears to be a legally recognized unincorporate on a highway significant enough to have road signs for the community. Its incorporation status is utterly beside the point. What we know from the sources is that this unincorporate is working hard to become a corporate. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There is a GNIS listing for Bellvue Cemetery (note spelling variation). A published reference is included therein: Slade, Leonard L., Sr. Lamar County Heritage. Baltimore, Md. Gateway Press, 1978. p11. That should satisfy the call for a reliable source. Woodlot (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fails WP:GEOLAND, which states that "populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable". Bellevue, Mississippi is not found on the state map, on Google maps, or on topographic maps. It is not listed in GNIS (which already lists over 50 places in the United States called "Bellevue"); it is not recognized by the US Census Bureau; and is not found on any federal or state record. A search of the Forrest County official website yields only this.

Furthermore, there is no historical mention of this place "Bellevue" (or "Bellvue") in any authoritative texts about Mississippi history, including Dunbar Rowland's Mississippi: Comprising Sketches of Counties, Towns, Events, Institutions, and Persons, Arranged in Cyclopedic Form, or Goodspeed's Biographical and Historical Memoirs of Mississippi. In Mississippi: The WPA Guide to the Magnolia State, a plantation called Bellevue is mentioned here, though it is several hundred miles north in Madison County. That same Bellevue is also the only result when searching the Mississippi Digital Library. A search of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History yields nothing about this putative settlement.

WP:GEOLAND also states that "populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include...unofficial neighborhoods". Reliable sources each state that this neighborhood does not yet exist; it is a proposed settlement. The website for Bellevue calls it "the future City of Bellevue". That same website also includes a link to a petition "to create this city" and "the name of the municipal corporation shall be City of Bellevue, Mississippi". On this map published in a reliable source, the place is described as "the proposed city of Bellevue".

Fails WP:USCITIES which suggests that a lead section to a US settlement article should contain:

• Name of city and location in state.
• City proper population (US Census figures should be used. When appropriate, other reliable estimates may be included as a supplement to Census figures.)
• Metro population (US Census figures should be used. When appropriate, other reliable estimates may be included as a supplement to Census figures.)
• Brief note about historical roots/founding.
• Nicknames, if notable.
• Primary industries supporting its economy (e.g. service, manufacturing, tourism, etc ...).
• Notable unusual characteristics and characteristics commonly associated with it.

I have been unable to locate any of these for Bellevue in reliable sources.

Furthermore, if an infobox settlement template were added to this article--as is typical of settlement articles in the United States--it would be empty (really, try it!).

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and a cemetery or unidentifiable photo of a road sign does not a place make. Only when Bellevue is created should it get an article. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, about the lead section, I'll give it a shot, with zero research whatsoever:
  • Bellevue, Mississippi, location stated earlier in this very discussion (sourced in many recent news articles)
  • Reliable sources establish a population of around 10,000 (sources in several recent news articles already discussed on this very page. You clearly weren't looking very hard for sources)
  • Part of the Hattiesburg metro area (again, sourced in many articles referenced on this very page)
  • Don't have an answer to history (but remember, zero research for this list)
  • Doesn't seem to have any nicknames
  • Industry supporting economy - mostly a bedroom community (no sources, but of course, this is a zero research post)
  • Unusual characteristics? Don't really know, but again, I've done no research
• So, with zero research whatsoever, I've been able to fill in most of what the lead should contain. As far as "populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable", it does not anywhere say that places without such recognition are never notable. Bellevue will be a notable place even if incorporation fails. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• So I take it you are unfamiliar with 5PILLARS? If it isn't published somewhere, it can't be used. To write a proper Wikipedia article, research must be done. There are 0 verfiable facts about this place, because it is a plan, not a place. Hence it fails WP:V, WP:GNG and WP:NOT. No one will object to this not yet place having an article once the effort to incorporate succeeds. Until then, it's WP:CRYSTAL. John from Idegon (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep named geographical feature. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This place doesn't exist yet, so fails WP:V. We do, on occasion, write about things which haven't happened yet. Super Bowl 50 is a good example, but the bar is pretty high. The attempt to create this city may happen in the future, but it's nowhere near that bar. None of the people arguing to keep have provided the WP:RS we need (and, no, a photograph of a highway sign doesn't do it). -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there are plenty in the article. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the article show that some people are thinking about making it exist in the future. They do not show that it exists now. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we have loads of articles on things that don't exist. We even have articles on things that have never existed and will never exist! --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the unincorporated community commonly called Bellevue does exist, right now. It is mentioned in local Hattiesburg press all the time. There's a local road sign, church, cemetery, etc. Population rise caused by urban sprawl is what is driving the incorporation effort.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Milowent has spoken! Seriously though if there is a sign, it's obviously a place. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 07:52, 3 November 2015 (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.