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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five Points, Texas[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)

Not notable Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability: This is my first time nominating an article for deletion. The subject is not notable, and cites a single source from the Texas Handbook Online [1]. This series is normally reliable, but it only cites one source: ""Five Points," Ellis County TXGenWeb website (http://www.rootsweb.com/~txellis/ghost-towns/five.htm)." The THO article itself makes only a few claims for notability: that is was a "strategic stage coach locations" and a "gin mill" in the 1800s. Five Points is unincorporated and had as few as 10 residents as recently as 2000. A Google search led to some real estate and geneology web sites, and only the substantial articles about "Five Points" linked to similarly named places in Dallas and San Antonio. I do not see a path to notability. [Excerpted from my talk page.] Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Generally, we afford wide latitude to named, populated places (even those that aren't really much-populated anymore). Five Points (in Ellis County, Texas) unquestionably exists. It is mentioned in a 1959 storm damage report, in a 1960s soil survey and in the environmnetal impact study for the Superconducting Supercollider site selection. The most comprehensive discussion of the community and its history appears to be in this publication of the Ellis County Genealogical Society; that's not necessarily a high-quality source (and I'd like to see more than snippet view before basing much text off of it), but I don't see any prima facie reason to discard it entirely. I suspect there will also be period newspaper sources from when it was a more influential location (although the rather generic name does make searching for them somewhat of a challenge). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Squeamish Ossifrage: I wrote a long response which I lost because of an edit conflict. Long story short, thanks for your response and for making me aware of the GEOPLAN guideline. I had never read it. I still think the article failed to meet the prima facie notability guideline, but that appears to be moot. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Texas Handbook Online is reliable and we are a gazetteer or some such phrase about populated places. Also, I expanded the article slightly to mention the Five Points Cotton Gin, place for two scenes in 1984 Sally Field / Danny Glover drama Places in the Heart, covered in a 2008 blog. There are cotton-farming related historic sites in Ellis County, e.g. the Ennis Cotton Press, and there might be one but I am not immediately finding an NRHP or Texas Historic Site historic site listing specifically about this cotton gin; maybe someone else will have more skill/luck searching. The 2008 blog mentioned some equipment removal / deterioration of the site. It is worth mentioning, still, in a short article about Five Points. --Doncram (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It is also mentioned in Texas Dept of Transportation documentation about Farm to Market Road 876. --Doncram (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw or Keep. In light of the latest edits, I now agree that notability is established. If it's an option, I will withdraw my nomination. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2018 (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.