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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Ranch[edit]

Adams Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This artice was speedy deleted under CSD A7. At DRV, the deleting admin consented to a listing at AfD to resolve the question. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article fails notability guidelines for a company. It has 6 google news hits, but it is not the subject of any of the articles. I could also find no evidence that its stock (if it has stock) prices are used to calculate any major market index. On top of all of these, the article still does not assert a claim to notability, which means it is still eligible for speedy deletion per article 7. In the interest of respecting the DRV, I won't tag it as such. -bobby 16:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - per modifications made. I'm still not entirely sure about the notability, but since people are making an effort I see no reason to send it away just yet. →bobby← 20:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article does not assert notability of ranch. I am sure there are hundreds of ranches run by families. Chris Kreider 16:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Weak Keep per all above, and by the lack of sources, could well be OR per TT's additions, though I feel that it needs an unambiguous statement of notability in the article text. Martinp23 23:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC) 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I discourage this because I think it will only result in the insertion of useless boilerplate notability assertions into articles, and severely damage our ability to be concise. Unfocused 00:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I realise the problem, though WP:NN does say that an article must assert its notability - it's really not something I like, because people could well start typing "this is notable because.....". Ah well... Martinp23 00:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:N is a guideline, not policy, in part because of the point I was just making. Regarding this article, if you lived in the area, found out about "Adams Ranch" and wanted to know more, where would you go? Why not here? We aren't running out of paper, bandwidth, or database space, and quite frankly, a ranch that spans several counties and has been in operation for so many years is becoming more notable every day, given that they're all being assimilated into megafarms. Unfocused 00:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see how this ranch is more notable than others. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TT's edits. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I found the sources that the article needs to demonstrate notability. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TT's addition to the article. Damn, he's good. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. The version I see is a fine addition to the encyclopedia. Unfocused 00:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Added another reference. Edison 00:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the wonderful expansions made by our community. Yamaguchi先生 04:57, 4 November 2006

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.