Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leisure Dome (Weston-super-Mare)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Leisure Dome (Weston-super-Mare)

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Too soon to have an article for a proposed facility that has not yet been submitted to the planning authorities, so right now it is nothing more than an idea. It has been reported in the local press, but all they do is report what is proposed as nothing has been submitted for approval. I suggest that the article is deleted as it is very spammy, and should be recreated once planning approval is granted and it is known that construction will commence. Simple Bob (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -- until the planning process has moved forward quite a bit, it's too WP:CRYSTAL-ballish for an article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - too speculative, and borderline notability anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I can see the nominators rationale, I'm not sure the lack of planning permission can be used as an argument. To use a fairly local example Hinkley Point C nuclear power station doesn't (yet) have planning permission - but no one is suggesting that article should be deleted.&mdash; Rod talk 15:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hinkley Point is a different thing altogether. It has been widely reported in the national press for the past two years and as recently as October was confirmed by the government as a suitable site (subject to planning permission of course). Notability of the proposed power station is beyond doubt, while a proposed leisure scheme that has only been reported in local newspapers based on the company's press releases is not yet notable in my opinion. Planning consent would help establish its notability. --Simple Bob (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete OK I agree for deletion at present on notability grounds.&mdash; Rod talk 17:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejustice for recreation if and when construction begins. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 23:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy. If construction commences as planned, this will have a good case for notability. If not, it won't. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:00, 4 December 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.