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. Lourdes 04:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Post West Dugout

Post West Dugout (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a place on the National Register of Historic Places that contains only two sentences. The first sentence has a citation to the National Register Information System. The second sentence claims that the historic place is a " dugout", but is unsourced nor does the NRIS verify this. It is also a perfectly reasonable assumption that the place once belonged to a Mr. Dugout who may or may not have been an acquaintance of Mr. Dubois, Mr. Dupont, or Mr. Dupree. The NRIS states that this place has an address restriction meaning its nomination form is not available for download from the National Park Service, the National Archive, nor the Texas Historical Commission. A Google search yields no results with meaningful information not requiring subscription. As such, this article provides no information not already available in National Register of Historic Places listings in Garza County, Texas nor is it likely that any new source of information will be available online any time soon. This article should therefore be deleted until such time as someone is able to obtain a reliable source to create an article more substantial than what is already published on the county list summary. Fortguy ( talk) 06:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Baby miss fortune} 06:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment, "nor does the NRIS verify this," although the NRIS listing title is "Post West Dugout", just wondering why nris would call it "dugout" if it isn't one? Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment If you ask the NPS for a redacted version of the nomination form, they'll usually send you one, and the Texas SHPO might as well. (I'd do it myself, except I'm definitely not going to get a response during the government shutdown and I don't want my request to get lost because of that.) Not sure what to do with the article in the meantime, but it's expandable and verifiable long-term. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 12:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment. The place is listed on NRHP. Address restrictions are common with archaeological and other protected sites where the exact location should not be published. This dugout appears to be a former town site. As with other NRHP listed sites, the documentation exists. It is a matter of retrieving it. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep, obviously. Previous commenters are being polite. It is obviously notable because listing on the National Register is only possible if the place is notable to a standard high above Wikipedia's standard for notability. There exists extensive documentation by experts about the importance of the place. -- Doncram ( talk) 07:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There's a consensus at WP:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places not to create stubs solely from NRIS data. This is worse still when NRIS data is redacted. The subject is probably notable, but what we have right now is a non-article; nothing of value is lost by deleting it. A red link is preferable because it signals that the article is still needed—and any champions of the West Post Dugout can recreate it when they actually have reliable sources in hand. Kim Post ( talk) 18:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete there's no secondary information on this whatsoever I can find. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SportingFlyer talk 03:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete since I didn't formally place that vote when nominating the sub-sub-stub. There is no basis to have this article at present when it contains less info than the county list article provides. The one vote so far to keep was made by the page creator claiming that there exists extensive documentation by experts about the importance of the place. If he has access to such documentation, then he should have included it on the page when he created it rendering this discussion moot. @ Coolabahapple, I don't know whether this is a dugout house, barn, canoe, fire-pit, or any other reason for the name in NRIS. @ TheCatalyst31 and @ Gene93k, while the nomination form may be available upon request, I believe most editors would rather spend such time and effort on historic places they feel are much higher priorities. If someone wishes to go to that trouble, then, by all means, they can recreate the article when they have enough information to provide something meaningful. Within this county, I would think the county courthouse, the one non-restricted address site without an article, would be a much higher priority. Also, Gene93k, I'm guessing that this is not a separate town site as "Post" is the name of the town that is currently the county seat. I don't know for a fact that my guess is true, and the NRIS does not address that; so, it would be presumptuous of me to assume that the name was eponymous to the town instead of referring to a location by a post oak, something to do with the mail service, a fence post, or some other kind of post without citation. Fortguy ( talk) 08:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Fortguy: A nomination is always considered a delete vote, so I've struck your vote. I've only seen one AfD where the nominator then !voted keep and it was because of a messy procedural issue (and an incorrect use of AfD.) The closer can still use your comment when judging consensus, though. SportingFlyer talk 08:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I was unsure about that. Fortguy ( talk) 08:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per WP:WHYN there aren't enough sources to support an article.-- Pontificalibus 09:08, 6 January 2019 (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.