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 GregJackP Boomer! 00:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC) (NAC, nominator withdrew nomination here)[reply]

Texas Slave Ranch[edit]

Texas Slave Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Notability. Seems to be a re-creation of a short-term interest news item that was mostly localized to one ranch in Texas. The only live link to a source in the article is to a brief NY Times article. It was created by a redlink editor who had no other edits. — Maile (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability requirements states, "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest..." — Maile (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't double !vote. Hasteur (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Mistake. Thanks for correcting. — Maile (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Texas ranch event (including abducting and enslaving workers) being reported on as far away as Pittsburg and New York City seems to have transcended the local news coverage criterion. Based on the fact that there is also a book that seems to be from a non-vanity press I'd say there's decent reason to suppose it's cleared the GNG guideline. Could the article do with re-writing and fixing? Yes, but AFD's not for Article cleanup. Hasteur (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, based on what you found, I wouldn't mind seeing this AFD closed right now as a Keep. However, I also wish somebody would adopt the article and bring it up to code, rather than it being tossed back as is, where it's susceptible to lots of tags. Isn't my type of thing to edit, but I'm sure someone could make a pretty nice little piece out of it, just by reading the book you have referenced. But, yes, you've proven it's notable. — Maile (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've done a polish up on the article, removing some of the sensational content, and moving content into citation references. Hasteur (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do we get somebody close this out? Do we just let it stay here until a sysop steps in to close it? — Maile (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any uninvolved editor is free to apply a NAC closure on grounds that the nominator has withdrawn the nominaton or you may close out the nomination yourself on the same withdrawn reasoning. I would have, but because I contributed to the article and this AfD I am prohibited from making the change myself per WP best practices. Hasteur (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, appears to pass WP:N/CA, books written regarding event long after 1986, therefore passes WP:PERSISTENCE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2013 (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.