Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CasaBlanca Resort

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CasaBlanca Resort

Delete. I do not believe this resort to be notable. Does not pass a notability check. camr ^nag 01:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why it is not notable? Coverage in multiple newspapers and other sources would seem to meet the notability requirements. Also most significant casinos are inherently notable. So exactly what makes this one not notable? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"most significant casinos are inherently notable" says who? why? "most" are not "all"... then why this one in particular fits those which are inherently notable?

coverage in multiple newspapers: 1.coverage in multiple newspapers might be payed for publicity. 2.serious coverage was restricted to one event (i think WP:ONEEVENT fits this article, even though this is not a biography).

"So exactly what makes this one not notable?". nothing makes something not notable. i'm not just another citizen in my country because i did something, but because i didn't. the thing is, i don't have to prove something is not notable (it's impossible), but what has to be proven is that the subject of the article is, in fact, notable.--camr ^nag 13:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nearly any resort property will have some non-trivial coverage, particularly by local papers. The LA Times will no doubt carry numerous mentions of establishments, but if a restaurant gets reviewed by the local rag does it become notable; if the local rag mentions the opening, closing, remodelling, ownership change, etc., of a property does the property thereby become notable? I don't think so, despite meeting WP:GNG technically. GNG is a guideline and is carefully worded to say "substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." I have no opinion on whether this property makes the grade, but it does seem to satisfy the GNG - as do lots of things that we wouldn't want to include articles on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG, plus: its the largest employer in Mesquite, Nevada and scene of a notable murder. Article seems thin at present - should have more notes on its older name - but that is no reason for deletion. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. not necessarily passes WP:GNG, Carlossuarez46 already clarified that. "it's the largest employer (...)": 1.that is on a town of 9k people 2.they actually employ 900+ people... that makes it notable? 3.the numbers are 2 years old. and yes, it may have been the scene of a notable murder, but not everything having to do with a notable murder must be notable. that's why one event is not grounds for notability.--camr ^nag 18:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also agree that it passes WP:GNG, in my opinion. If this article is going to be deleted, then that would set a precedent for other users to vote to delete other articles about casinos. Articles about casinos are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gambling. The Wikipedia website has LOTS of disk space, and still functions efficiently when searching for whatever topic the average user is interested in. I'm a firm believer of the more the merrier. In a way this also is the making (and retention) of the history of casinos. If you take that away, then were is a good repository for that? Please - lets continue to encourage users to create new articles, and lets not get trigger-happy about deleting them. It has lots of references too.Zul32 (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. an encyclopedia is about quality, not quantity. the fact that this articles are part of a project does not make the notable. this would only set a precedent regarding non-notable casinos.--camr ^nag 14:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Plenty of references added since nomination. 2005 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. the problem was not lack of references, but relevance.--camr ^nag 14:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move on please. There is significant coverage in reliable sources that are referenced. They are directly relevant to the subject of the article. Please read WP:N and if you have a problem with the guideline, take a discussion to that page. 2005 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep-there are many articles of this kind on wikipedia. I don't see why it isn't notable. If only it were to be expanded and include a picture, it will be well off. But as for "not notable" I disagree. There is lots of stuff on wikipedia that I think is not notable and this article is just as good.Schnitzel MannGreek. 18:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. would you people stop saying that other similar articles exist? it's clearly not an argument (WP:OTHERSTUFF) and it makes me suspect forum shopping.--camr ^nag 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping??? The nomination reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT but using WP:AGF I avoided that comment till now. While WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep something, it is clear from the keep comments that a consensus appears to be there that notability has been adequately established. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how is saying something is not notable constitutes WP:IDONTLIKEIT? nobody utters a valid reason as to why this is notable. they keep saying that there's other stuff and that they are part of a category, neither of which are grounds for notability. that's what made me stop AGF: the surprising amount of keeps that offer no reason for keeping.--camr ^nag 23:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I strongly believe that there are ample references provided to establish notability. While google results are not an indicator of notability, trying to sift through 357,000 google results is an impossible task that makes locating better online references extremely difficult. The sheer number of hits is clearly an indication that there is some notability associated with the resort. To imply that the only casino constructed and owned by Players International is not notable for that fact alone is surprising. I believe that the article clearly establishes notability with the citations provided. New articles take time to develop and improve. I'll again state for the record that the nomination is of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT type. This article is referenced from several sources that meet WP:RS and WP:V and I'm sure more will be added overtime. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2009 (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.