Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union Pacific Train Robbery

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. postdlf (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Union Pacific Train Robbery

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

Sounds like a hoax, no sources. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant hoax. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you explain THIS SOURCE? Pray tell... Carrite (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With all due respect to the other editors, this is not a hoax. A Google Books search under "Big Springs Robbery" produces much in-depth coverage. Searching under the article name produces false positives, as the Union Pacific was robbed more than once. Though legends have accumulated about these train robberies of the Old West, this one is notable. Weaknesses in the current article should be addressed through the normal editing process, rather than deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An abundance of reliable sources can be obtained with a Google Books search with "Big Springs" in quotes, as well as the following search terms outside of quotes: train robbery 1877. Cullen328 (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I suggest renaming it to something more in keeping with contemporty reports.--Dmol (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shoulda stopped at "no sources" without the ugly accusation of someone else of perpetrating a hoax. Fortunately, sources were added after the nomination. There are more. [1] [2] and [3] and [4]. Usually, it's a good idea to make sure before someone else of perpetrating a hoax or writing "blatant hoax". We have our share of hoaxes around here, to be sure, but the nominators can usually back it up with more than "sounds like a hoax". Mandsford 23:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Noteworthy historical event. Clearly not a hoax per the sources cited above. This is a rather unfortunate display of Biting the Newcomers. It's little wonder why new editors are so hard to come by. A good-faith first effort, tag for Wikification and style. Keep, improve. Carrite (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After this AfD closes, presumably as a keep, article title needs to be changed for greater specificity: Union Pacific robbery of 1877 or some such... Carrite (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or Union Pacific Big Springs robbery, since reliable sources of the time do call it the Big Springs Robbery. --NellieBly (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as obvious notable event with multiple good sources. Even a highly unlikely story can be true, but there's nothing highly unlikely about a train robbery in 19th century America. There are more things in heaven and earth, fellow editors, than are dreamt of in any of our philosophies. --NellieBly (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per NellieBly.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2011 (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.