Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Worlds Resorts


 * 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   delete. No commenter argues that this should be maintained as a separate article, and the minority that mention a merge also acknowledge that there is no sourced content. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

All Worlds Resorts

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced and controversial/opinionated; I see nothing salvageable here, so suggest deletion  Chzz  ►  18:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Neutral . A cursory exam on google shows some results, but most are travel guides.  I'm going neutral because there may be a potential for this to be fixed, but it's up to the authors to come up with something. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have stricken this vote because Dennisthe2 has changed his vote to delete (see below). Cunard (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 23:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

*Delete, article is unreferenced and notability has not been established. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment. I usually close these "no consensus with leave to speedy renominate" but am relisting a second time on the request of the nominator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Change !vote to delete. In two weeks there have been no improvements to this article? A review of Google links, at any rate, don't show anythign new either.  Can't find any WP:RS.  It gotta go. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote, to merge with LGBT tourism. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge per RightCowLeftCoast.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The article is unreferenced and promotional. The content could be useful for a merge if there were sources, but I have been unable to find any. Having searched through Google News Archive and Google, I was not able to find reliable sources. Only useful, marginally-notable content that can be sourced should be merged. However, since there are no sources, merging this content to LGBT tourism would not improve that article but detract from its quality. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cunard. Promotional and unsourced material; unsourceable as far as I can tell. Merging would be a bad idea in those circumstances. Tim Song (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.