Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bench, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Bench, Idaho

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is another case of an LDS ward which the church hoped would grow into a town but which apparently never did. It geolocates to a house which aerials show replaced an earlier building sometime in the decade after WW II. That earlier building would appear to be the church shown on topos. Other than that, the area is all farms, never seeming to change much over the decades. Our favorite LDS genealogical publication is the only source I've found, since searching is well-nigh impossible for so common a word, and I'm not willing to take their description of the place as a "small farming settlement" as imbuing a vague rural area with notability. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Bench had a population of 75, according to the 1909 Davis Encyclopedia, so it did grow into a small town, although the population clearly eroded over time (which is extremely common with small towns). The USGS has an entry for the community, listing it as a populated place, and reference works of the past note the community's population. WP:GEOLAND is thus satisfied: "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 deletion nomination appears to be based on observations of the current state of the community, but reference works of the past tell us this was a once-happening place. Since notability is not temporary, and since there are other encyclopedias which note this community, we likely should, as well. Firsfron of Ronchester  21:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Davis population figure, even taken at face value, does not show that Bench was a town at all; at best it shows that some area had that many people in it, but it doesn't characterize that area. For all we know, it could just represent all the farms whose mail was picked up at the Bench post office. We've been over the USGS entry many times: first, GNIS itself denies that it constitutes official recognition, and second, there are so many errors in GNIS, and its classification of "populated place" so broad, that we have deprecated it in AfD after AfD as far as the characterization of a place is concerned. The same story goes for old post offices.


 * I've found old abandoned places, like Conda, Idaho, but the difference is in the documentation. In the case of Conda, the maps show it used to be there, and there is perfectly good documentation of its construction and removal. In the case of Bench, it seems to me that the best we can do is string together a location given by GNIS, an LDS ward, a post office, and a population of uncertain authority, and synthesize them into a town called Bench. And on some level there's no doubting a place called Bench, but there really isn't enough here to characterize it. Mangoe (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "The Davis population figure, even taken at face value, does not show that Bench was a town at all; at best it shows that some area had that many people in it, but it doesn't characterize that area." No, it actually does, listing Bench, Idaho, under 'towns'. Bench also appears on the map in the same encyclopedia, not as "Bench PO", but as "Bench". We've got references calling the community a "small farming settlement" and a town. Clearly, this was a community, not a post office, as post offices don't have populations. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep Article has had enough added to justify keeping. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 01:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Weak Delete As it stands the only notability is from a 1909 encyclopedia showing that the town had a population. It should have at least three significant reliable sources to verify its population and thus notability, and none of the other sources do that. — F ORMAL D UDE  ( talk ) 00:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd  •  SPEAK  21:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - all we really have here are the statement in the canal book cited in the article that however the Davis Encyclopedia defines the scope is as that it had a population of 75. My searching brought up some passing mentions that aren't very helpful, and a number of fairly trivial references to the "Bench ward".  Looks to me like this could well have just been a vague, undefined area based on the LDS ward.  I'd probably have given this one the benefit of the doubt if I were nominator, but I'm not seeing the bases for an article here.  Redirection to Gem Valley might also be okay, as it is briefly mentioned there. Hog Farm Talk 19:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As per the description of having a population of 75, which indicates a community of sorts at one point. Thus, it meets GEOLAND. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 02:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The source that states it had a population is really weak and doesn't verify that claim. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 04:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The cited source states that it was a town with a population of 75, which absolutely verifies there was a community here, and with a population of 75 residents. Why are we deleting content included in other encyclopedias? Isn't the concept of deletion to remove unencyclopedic content? Firsfron of Ronchester  04:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A single line mentioning the town name and estimated population from the 1909 version of an encyclopedia does not warrant a standalone Wikipedia article. It does not pass WP:GNG. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 05:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, a single line mentioning the town name and estimated population, in an encyclopedia, verify that this was a populated place, thus satisfying WP:GEOLAND: "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." Again I am asking: why are we deleting content included in other (print) encyclopedias? We delete articles on non-notable things, not communities that once had 75 residents. The sources used in this article are independent of the subject, and include a national encyclopedia, a publisher outside of the state of Idaho, a government database, a commercial website, and county newspapers from a 20-year period. They encompass sources from between 1909 and 2018: over 100 years of history, and include milestones from 1902, 1909, 1919, 1923, and 1957-1977. Firsfron of Ronchester  06:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Jamesallain85 (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per GEOLAND and some newspaper mentions. I've added an oddball law enacted there. There's also an Idaho Statesman article dated 22 September 1903 about a young woman from there who committed suicide in Salt Lake City; not suitable for Wikipedia, but more proof it was a recognized populated place. The place also pops up in minor social news, obituaries, etc. (e.g., "Frank Christensen of Bench, Idaho, has been visiting his parents and relatives here", according to the 1912 Logan, Utah, Journal). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep we have enough sources that show this was a recognized place to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep While it probably does not meet GNG, it meets GEOLAND, which is enough to justify an article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2021 (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.