Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresno Crossing, California

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. – bradv🍁 17:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno Crossing, California[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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG and fails WP:GEOLAND. This is just a waypoint from an old stagecoach map, not a community. I no longer live here, but I still own land here and have never heard it called by this name. It is literally the Fresno River crossing of the old Stockton–Los Angeles Road nothing more, nothing less. Yosemiter (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am getting a number of historical newspaper hits such as [1], there was a populated camp at the river crossing with that name [2], and a populated trading post before 1911 [3] which was apparently founded in 1852 [4]. Passes WP:GEOLAND as a historic populated place. SportingFlyer T·C 03:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it doesn't look like it's been referred to as Fresno Crossing in years, but we don't require places to be currently inhabited. SportingFlyer T·C 03:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I'm not sure it was ever legally recognized, so does the depth of those articles contribute anymore than mentions to meet GNG? It mentions a trading post and that it once had an estimated population of 65 individuals, but that is all pretty common for what were mostly just mining camps along all the streams in that area. Some of the mining camps had centers (such as those that eventually merged into the town of Coarsegold, California). But agreed, if it ever was a place, it has not been since what appears to be the 1930s as the last mentions of an existing place. If the article is deemed to meet GNG, then it should at least be updated to reflect that is a historical entity like Newton's Crossing. The current community is considered part of Coarsegold, and the current common name would not be "Fresno Crossing". Yosemiter (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our notability guidelines for places are very low, we've kept camps before, and articles like [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10] support the historic nature of the community. At the very least it should be merged into Coarsegold, but I think there's enough here for someone to write an interesting stub. I'm not suggesting for a moment this is a current place. (Interestingly, it does not appear on topo maps in the 1940s.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a historically-attested camp. There is enough here for GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have just posted a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:56, 27 April 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.