Lowell, Bartholomew County, Indiana : This Lowell obviously wasn't laid out in 1853, as it consists entirely of tract homes.  It also rather abruptly appears on the topos.  And this is no surprise, because Baker's passage refers to the town in Lake County , not this place.  This is yet another subdivision around Columbus, and lacks any notability.  Mangoe ( talk ) 13:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sourcing is indeed false.   The Lowell in Bartholomew County was, according to Cowen's 1866 Indiana State Gazetteer and the 1869 Lippincott's , a post office, and more properly named Lowell Mills .   Now knowing that name, the Lowell Mills to the north of Columbus turn up in some contemporary biographies, and also in an Arcadia book: ISBN 9780738534497 has the two Lowell Bridges (old and modern), the 1830–1880 existence of Lowell Mills, the various town buildings, and "Today all traces of the town are gone".  Every single thing in this 3-sentence plus infobox article is false when it comes to the only documented Lowell that we have, Lowell Mills.   The foundation date is wrong, per the Arcadia book, as is the location (the Arcadia book placing it on the Driftwood River to the west of the housing estate) and the first sentence should say "was a town in the 19th century" rather than (present tense generic cop-out) "is an unincorporated community".  Uncle G ( talk ) 09:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The newspapers in the late 1800s talk about lowell mills, I didn't know what it was until now.  There is train station named lowell that is mentioned.  Also a Dam named lowell, I think the dam was for a mill, hence lowell mills, and the bridges are also talked about.  I've not seen anything that would tell me where these things are though.  James.folsom ( talk ) 23:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So a continued reading makes it seem that the Lowell Mills place was often called Lowell.  There was definitely a dam, definitely a mill called Lowells mill.  Also A whole lotta fishing going there.  I'd image that Lowell Station was near there as well.  It all disappears by 1890.  It is probably named after Lowell Mass, because there is alot of Lowell Mass, related stuff in the local paper, indicating some connection.  Arbitrary examples: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-republic-lowell-a-place/143378518/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-republic-lowel-a-place-1/143378731/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-republic-lowell-a-place-2/143378786/ I believe it was just the 1800s version of a recreational area, and not notable.  I also apologize in advance for the inevitable flood of "It exists, KEEP" votes that are coming.  But, it'd just be used against me if I didn't mention it.  James.folsom ( talk ) 00:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete An article in this mess is not worth keeping.  Does not meet WP:GEOLAND as not a separate recognised place.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 10:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It's really confusing because there still is yet a different Lowell, Indiana that still exists.  Combine that with all the Lowell, Mass stuff and it's hard to pin down.  I think the news articles I found are for a Lowell nearer to Columbus than the other Lowell, but I can't be sure.  UncleG has at least established that the location of the housing development is different from whatever other Lowells did exist, so I think this should be deleted because we don't need to burden the Columbus, or it's counties article with every housing development that they have.  Plus the info is all wrong, and somebody can always start an article about the actual really old place from scratch if they want.  James.folsom ( talk ) 00:31, 15 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete