Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliot Bay Marina


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 01:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Elliot Bay Marina

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete nn marina per WP:ORG and WP:NOT wikipedia is not a directory Mayalld (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, , , , , , (not the best, but very interesting), , . Sources enough? Brilliantine (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources found by Brilliantine; multiple, independent sources seem to verify notability per WP:ORG. Article does not appear to be a directory -- does not appear to fall under any category of WP:NOTDIR, 1-5.  Not sure specifically which criteria of WP:ORG and WP:NOTDIR the nominator thinks the Elliott Bay Marina does not satisfy.  --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article as it stands now is significantly less spammy that it was when nominated, due to the deletion of the infobox template that used to appear on it. I still don't think it notable though. Mayalld (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment To me, the The Seattle Times, Fox News, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the EPA, and the Washington State Park System sources qualify as significant coverage, from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (per WP:GNG). The mentions at Fox News, the EPA website, and several independent national publications (which have, admittedly unverified notability...but they are undoubtedly national independent references) here, here and here seem to satisfy the WP:ORG stipulation that "attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability."  --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Sure there are sources that mention the marina, but they don't seem to be ABOUT the marina Mayalld (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep enough sources, but appears to be minor. We66er (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2008 (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.