Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fivemile Crossing, Texas


 * 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  01:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Fivemile Crossing, Texas

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Coordinates show a road/bridge over a river. I don't think this is a populated place. wizzito &#124; say hello!  01:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito  &#124; say hello!  01:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. wizzito  &#124; say hello!  01:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Nope, obviously just a river crossing, not too far from Tenmile crossing. I continue to be baffled how so many users created so many articles without doing the smallest smidgeon of assessing the veracity and notability of their content. Reywas92Talk 03:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm baffled by that as well. There seem to be a huge number of such articles. Would it be too elitist to suggest that every new article needed to be approved by an administrator before it could be published? I'm not suggesting an in-depth study for every new article, just a quick check. Athel cb (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like a huge problem to me. There are lots of silly microstubs created from database information, and most of them are perfectly valid subjects for articles. For example, I originally created Fordson Island, Fox Island, Van Sickle Island and Headreach Island as GNIS stubs; all four are now GAs. Bradford Island, a GNIS microstub in its [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=978790814 first revision], is currently a 162kb long GA undergoing peer review prior to nomination as a featured article candidate. There are definitely some stinkers, but even among the GNIS stubs nominated at AfD (a sample heavily biased towards the worst ones) there are quite a few that manage to get expanded into respectable articles. jp×g 19:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. See the burial site listed at https://www.findagrave.com/cemetery/2321144/smith-cemetery This suggests a community once existed here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you see the map? The user-submitted burial site is several miles West of the place we're talking about. The fivemile crossing is an unusual way to refer to a community but a common way to describe a place where a road crosses a river. –dlthewave ☎ 12:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Best I can find is this passing mention to the subject as a river crossing, although there seems to be some sort of minor archaeological site in the general area. Even if the archaeological site is notable, it's a separate location and a separate article subject.  I don't put much faith in that Find A Grave link - it doesn't directly associate the unnamed cemetery with the river crossing, and doesn't even work as indication of a community.  Could as well be an old family plot. Hog Farm Talk 05:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Appears to be a river crossing that's used as a local landmark. Newspaper results are mostly road construction reports or things that took place "South of Fivemile Crossing" etc. Not a community, fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 12:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Search results are useless and newspaper results turn up very little; there are only thirteen of them, all of which seem to refer to it as a landmark rather than an inhabited place. The closest thing to a place name I could find was this relevant clipping by some Newspapers.com user named "Hog_Farm" (seems like a diligent fellow, perhaps we should invite them to start editing Wikipedia!) jp×g 18:50, 28 September 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.