Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doubleheader, 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Doubleheader, Texas

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

While this claims to be a real community, at least in the past, I can't find a shred of evidence for its existence. There's nothing in the Handbook of Texas, which records ghost towns; there's nothing in the GNIS; and the only Google results are Wikipedia mirrors. Prove that this place exists (or at least existed) and I'll withdraw, but I have no reason to believe in its very existence. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I believe you are correct. I did some checks of my own and found nothing, nada, zip. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  01:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you see what the creator wrote at Talk:Doubleheader, Texas? Uncle G (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw it before I edited the article; but that doesn't prove its existence. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It did point to a place to start looking for such proof, though. Uncle G (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If anyone is interested in researching this some more, this looks like a good place to start. It looks like they have a historian you can contact as well. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  01:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even though I cannot justify my subjective opinion based on any Wikipedia policy, a developed version of this article would offer an insightful glimpse of early Central Texas. In order for reliable sources to be found, personal collaboration with one or more of the following will be required:
 * Temple College, which has two history professors that specialize in Texas history
 * Temple Daily Telegram, which may have old newspapers on microform that contain useful information
 * Temple Public Library, which may have relevant information on microform and/or relevant literature
 * Texas State Historical Association, which may be willing to assist in research
 * Czech Heritage Museum and Genealogy Center of Temple, which may have historians familiar with Doubleheader
 * Slavonic Benevolent Order of the State of Texas, which may have historians familiar with Doubleheader
 * Bell County Museum, which may have historians familiar with the general area
 * Temple Railroad & Heritage Museum, which may possibly have relevant information
 * I would like to again emphasize the importance of finding someone that is both Czech and getting on up there in years, as this is more likely to be a familiar topic with a generation of people that would already be well over 100 years old by now. —  C M B J   04:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So only these people have the information? There's nothing published online; is there anything published in print?  If the only reason I can't get the information is that I don't have the extant printed publications, that's fine, but if there aren't print sources, it's unverifiable.  Advocating keeping, simply based on the existence of places that might have information, is against policy — whether such sources exist or not, you (not just some professional historians) are required to provide reliable sources.  I understand that Wikipedia isn't always bound by rules, but having an article on an impossible-to-source topic — if that's what this is — is not going to benefit the encyclopedia, even if it does provide an insightful glimpse of early Central Texas.  Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If no verifiable information exists, then we both can agree that the article most certainly does deserve to be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Seeing as this was a settlement, I have opted to take the stance that information very likely exists in print, but is simply unavailable on the internet. —  C M B J   04:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then provide it; if the article is deleted and then you find sources, you can recreate — recreation is prohibited only when the article is essentially the same. In the mean time, however, there's nothing to prevent deletion.  Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. It's seldom a good editorial move to create an unsourced article, and interim deletion is the most practical resolution in most cases. I most likely wouldn't have even tried to create this article in the first place if not for the fact that it relates to history and seems to be virtually unknown to the outside world. —  C M B J   05:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If something is "unknown" then it's not part of human knowledge. If it's not part of human knowledge, it's not within our remit.  The onus is on the people with the unrecorded knowledge that exists solely in their heads to record and publish it properly, in the conventional ways with the usual fact checking and peer review processes, so that we can gain access to it.  We as encyclopaedists can give them encouragement in that &mdash; We need people doing that, otherwise there's no knowledge for an encyclopaedia to contain.  A tertiary source, and indeed a secondary source, is nothing without published research and other writings, documenting the knowledge in the first place, to precede it. &mdash; but it's still their task and not ours to do for them.  Uncle G (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By outside world, I meant outside of the immediate geographical area and on the internet. If it truly is unrecorded, then yes, it is the onus of the enlightened to properly publish it.  —  C M B J   22:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete until information is uncovered that shows the town even existed. Borock (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice toward later recreation with sources cited. CopaceticThought (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of existence. Real settlements are notable enough without question, but "real" is a significant part of that. Happy to change my vote if evidence surfaces. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The creator must have had some source--I invite him to say on what basis he wrote the article. It is also possible that if the source is family tradition the exact name of the town may be somewhat other than specified here. DGG (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You hit the nail on the head. I learned of this place verbally. As of this morning, I have received confirmation from a local historian that the place did in fact exist, and was located in this area. I will see what I can come up with in terms of sourcing.  —  C M B J   16:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment the USGS database has nothing on the place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless WP:RS can be found proving its existence. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2009 (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.