Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chesapeake House


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Chesapeake House

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A roadside service area doesn't establish notability absent something more, and I see no indication of that. Shadowjams (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. At this time, the article is absolutely deletable, but I believe sources could possibly be found.  I've tagged it for rescue, since with a robust article on Maryland House, its more southerly sibling, I think it's distinctly possible that we can bring this one back.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Maryland House article as well. My only concern would be that sources have some indication of notability, rather than just references from road atlases. Shadowjams (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind posting one of those sources? I would change my mind if my original estimation was wrong. Shadowjams (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I can find tons of sources addressing this apparently super busy major rest stop.  Why nominate brand new articles for deletion like this?  It doesn't hurt to give the author a few weeks.--Milowent (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, because I think the general premise, a rest stop on a highway, is probably by itself not notable, and a few weeks doesn't change that. It's a strange position to suggest that I allow an editor to invest more of his or her time in an article before its deletion, if the fundamental reason won't change.
 * I quickly posted one that says it is one of top 5 busiest rest stops in the country, among other facts (from Baltimore Sun)--Milowent (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Having done a little research and added some sources to the original article, I believe that there could be an argument that the WP:N requirement is fulfilled by the unique legal position of the rest-stop and the impact that its creation has had on the debate about the commercialisation of such places in the US.ManicSpider (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thanks to the work of some wonderfully dedicated editors, I believe we now have enough sources to clear notability.  Now we just need more...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. As the original author, I feel I must recuse myself from voting here. I created the article borrowing largely from the existing article on Maryland House.  If this article is indeed voted for deletion than I would argue for the deletion of Maryland House on similar grounds.  However, I figured editors more knowledgeable or with time to do research on the subject could expand on the new article.  I edit Wikipedia largely from work when I'm on lunch or other breaks, and my job obviously takes precedence...  I don't really have the time to do the research even though I'm interested.  I thank those of you who found sources for including them in the article.  --Tckma (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per SchuminWeb. Article rescue for the win. Agree that more would be nice, but it's a very good start. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Having been expanded and sourced, the article now clearly establishes that this rest stop is notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:22, 27 February 2010 (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.