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The result of the debate was speedy keep; withdrawn. Ashibaka tock 22:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===Apple Springs, Texas=== Is there really enough material for this to be an article? Where (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Article expanded. Withdrew nomination. Where (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep real town. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very small towns get very small articles. :) Hopefully it'll be expanded, but it's a reasonable stub. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real place --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, real towns get articles. Grandmasterka 02:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yep, it's marked as a stub, so I don't see why it should be deleted. SYCTHOS^talk 02:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very efficient article.--ragesoss 02:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because just like they said, towns get articles. Parts of towns are where we have problems... Deiz 02:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Small town, but real JasonMilder 02:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Real place with real community of interest. Capitalistroadster 02:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as Speedy Keep? Ashibaka tock 02:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator withdraws, yes. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - verifiable Texas town. —ERcheck @ 02:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That depends on your definition of the word "town". We know that there was a cluster of houses and business at a particular place in the past. We know some people referred to it with the word "town". We don't know if it ever had any legal status. Nor do we know if it exists today. We might want to think about we categorize things, as we're lumping what could be unofficial place, with "real" towns, that have their own government, or are at least counted in the census. --Rob 03:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a quick Google brings up this article on the town's 150-year history, which shows that it is indeed a real place with a post office and a peak population of 285. Would I start a campaign to hold the Olympics there? No. But it's clear we're not talking about two Winnebagos and a hot-dog stand either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know about that, as I already added that as a reference to the article, before I made the preceding statement. It still doesn't verifiably clear up signficant issues I brought up here, and at Talk:Apple Springs, Texas. The fact nobody's found much beyond that one item in Google, shows the problem. --Rob 03:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article links to a University of Texas online article giving a reasonable history of the place. The Alabama Creek Wildlife Management Area is nearby. This Google Print search outlines other references to the place see [1]. Capitalistroadster 04:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has a small school district serving pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, with a TEA rating for 2004-2005. I've added information (plus references) to the article. —ERcheck @ 04:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although I think two Winnebagos and a hot-dog stand might be closer to the truth than Andrew Lenahan thinks. Eusebeus 07:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Real place Royboycrashfan 07:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, reasonably good stub on a real town. Very clear past precedent to keep all real and verifiable towns and villages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Surely real CDP's are invariably encyclopedic. StarryEyes 11:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you know its a real CDP? --Rob 19:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's a sch... Erm, wait. I mean Keep, it's a town. Really, people, all real towns deserve articles. JIP | Talk 12:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep real town. Does need more info, though, but definitely not delete material. The Deviant 14:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In the nominator's defense, I might point out that the content when it was tagged was "Apple Springs is a very small town in Trinity county, Texas.". One might argue that such an article is quite useless, because people interested in reading about the town already know its location and will get nothing from it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this real rural community. All populated places deserve recognition...where do we draw the line between "town that deserves an article" and "town that does not deserve an article"? --Caponer 17:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, real place. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep As per above.--lightdarkness 21:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: before, when I nominated it, it did not have enough content to be kept. Now, it obviously does. Where (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2006 (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.