Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Grief, Idaho

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. Tone 08:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Grief, Idaho

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This news segment tells the whole story: started as a store named Addie's, renamed (supposedly) in the 1950s after a remark by the purchaser's wife. Topos consistently show only this building. The store/whatever is still there, and I have to say that Hee Haw is not a reliable source. Mangoe (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because a populated place is the size of one household and business doesn't mean that it's not notable; Monowi, Nebraska is even incorporated, and Nothing, Arizona is pretty clearly notable despite never having much more than a gas station. Good Grief appears to be in a similar position; between the Hee Haw reference and its consistent use as a placename (see [1] [2], and even a mention in Congress), it's notable as a community despite its very small size. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eh, those aren't good comparisons for small places: Monowi does have "legal recognition" and once had a lot more people, and Nothing seems to have SIGCOV. But GMaps does appear to show something of an actual community (independent of nearby places and not a housing development), not just one old grouch. Just don't create another article for "Addie" that appears next to it there...it's clearly the same place then. Reywas92^Talk 04:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Addie IS right next to it, at least on the topos and according to GNIS. Going back into the 1960s, it shows up next to the tracks, and yes, there used to be a siding there, and Google at least believes in an "Old Addie Road". Trying to sort out all the structures is pretty much hopeless: the topo maps do appear to be in correspondence with contemporary aerial photos, and they show that the Addie buildings gradually disappear and that the buildings near the store start showing up in the late 1990s. Maybe this can be all combined into one place article, but I'm not sure how to write that at this point. However, I will reconsider this discussion and will probably withdraw it. Mangoe (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The three references found by TheCatalyst31 are trivial and are not sufficient to meet WP:GEOLAND#2. However, the ktvb.com article found by Mangoe does meet WP:GEOLAND#2. However (again), I'm not sure if one article is sufficient. I don't know that we've found anything to indicate that this place is a legally recognized location other than GNIS. I agree that it does not matter about the size of the location, what matters is whether it is legally recognized or if it has non-trivial coverage. I don't see that we have that here yet. Because there is one non-trivial article, I'm going with a weak keep. Merging would also be acceptable. Cxbrx (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2020 (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.