Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Grove, Washington

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 delete. ✗plicit 06:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Grove, Washington[edit]

[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)

The current grain elevator beside the tracks replaced an older one alongside two long warehouse-type buildings, but other than that the song remains the same: it's another rail shipping point elevated to a town by various unwary readers who didn't look at the map to see that there's nothing much there. Since nobody is apparently named "Valley Grove", searching was more practical, but I turned up nothing, including a whole series of false hits in census publications due to juxtaposition. Mangoe (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNIS spam. No evidence of legal recognition through e.g., incorporation. A post office is not evidence of legal recognition of a population community as these can be literally anywhere, even mobile, and are (and were) often just co-located inside stores and stations that need not be part of any community. The post office existed for all of ten years, which is about the lifetime of a store, so I would suggest this as the most likely explanation. No evidence of a WP:GNG pass either.

Mangoe's work on these GNIS stubs is commendable (this is one of possibly hundreds of these articles they have had to do this work on), but frankly it should be unnecessary, because the fact that these is literally nothing to write about this place, and the article is essentially a directory-listing, should be reason enough to delete it. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FOARP. –dlthewave ☎ 16:15, 1 December 2021 (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.