Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live! Hotel and Casino Philadelphia


 * 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 defaulting to keep. Split between passing WP:GNG and failing WP:CRYSTAL, both of which are valid points. Concerns about promotional language can be ironed out through editing; the discussion about number of proposed rooms is neither here nor there. ansh 666 07:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Live! Hotel and Casino Philadelphia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:N and WP:TOOSOON. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources regarding the construction and/or planning of the building, so I don't see why it would need it's own page just yet. Comatmebro (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Cordish Companies until we have plenty of construction progress; at this point it's still in planning and still too many unknowns exist.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - this casino is not planned to open until 2020, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Vorbee (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a done deal, the casino will be built. The state has already granted the license and the lawsuit that was blocking it has been dropped. Construction will begin next year. As for secondary sources, there are plenty, see Google News link (you have to type it in without the quotes because sometimes it is referred to as casino and hotel instead of hotel and casino)--Rusf10 (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete we should wait until construction actually starts for an article. Companies have been known to go bankrupt before completing projects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources to satisfy GNG are easily found, as the casino proposal has been a subject of prolific news coverage for over 3 years. Seems like a failure of WP:BEFORE. Some sources found in a cursory search:          Toohool (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That is coverage and a blog about the proposal. The topic we are discussing is a 2020 casino that might end up opening in 2023 or never.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I linked to 10 substantial stories from a variety of reliable sources about the proposed casino. The proposal for the casino is not a distinct, separate topic from the casino. You seem to be arguing that any planned or proposed project is inherently non-notable, and that any articles about such topics are inherently promotional. That is not policy, and there's no promotional content in the article. Toohool (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That which is distinct is the past and the future. I've replied further below.With the new material you've added, you use the name "Cordish/Greenwood proposal".  Unscintillating (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt Even if there is material for a history article that could avoid failing WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, the article we are discussing is a coatrack for promotion.  I was unable to identify any suitable targets for a salted redirect at this time.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd also support a Merge to Cordish/Greenwood proposal and salt the remaining redirect There is a new history section that can be moved to create a relevant article.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding, I challenge you to find just one sentence in that article that is promotional. Simply stating the a project is planned is NOT a promotion. And I probably could find a hundred articles on here about projects that have not been finished yet, so that is a solid argument either. Given that Pennsylvania only can issue a limited number of licenses for casinos and this was one of them its notable. And since the project has now cleared all legal hurtles, it is more likely than not to be finished.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The article reports in the infobox that the casino has "200+" hotel rooms...that is erroneous. The article's statement that the casino "will have over 200 hotel rooms" cannot be verifiable in 2017, so is puffery using Wikipedia's voice.  No sources report the day that the casino opened, because the casino doesn't exist.  Writing an article about a non-existent casino and its non-existent hotel rooms reifies the casino.  I looked at the definition of "promotion" and believe that my assertion that this article is promotion is well founded.  Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we can wait until 2020 or 2021 to report about 2020.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the Washington Post, there will actually be 240 hotel rooms, so 200+ is actually being conservative. Using your same ridiculous definition of promotion, why do you go ahead and nominate every page it this category for deletion: Category:Proposed buildings and structures in the United States --Rusf10 (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The category is WP:OSE. Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My definition of promotion is published by Merriam Webster, and I believe that my viewpoint that this article is promotion is well founded. If all you can find to say about that is a pejorative, that suggests that you can't refute the logic, but you don't want to agree.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The correct number of rooms in the casino's hotel is the empty set. Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The blog by a staff writer of the Washington Post says (emphasis added) that "The project...includes a 240-room hotel". Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Live! Hotel and Casino Philadelphia now states that it has "240" rooms. This is a WP:SYNTH of the world of 2020, and the world of 2020 cannot possibly be reliably sourced.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Deletion policy at WP:DEL6 states, "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including...original theories and conclusions". Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your arguments for deletion just keep getting more absurd. Original research?????? Everything is cited. You seem to be fixated on the number of hotel rooms. The plan is 240 according to multiple sources: Philadelphia Business JournalWPVI (ABC)New York Times And the doesn't exist yet argument is really getting old. And when I look up definitions, I prefer to use Dictionary.com--Rusf10 (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * weak keep seems to have enough sources to meet WP:N. WP:TOOSOON isn't really on point, but WP:CRYSTAL is.  Both accept meeting WP:N as enough to overcome the issues.  Weak because the sources aren't great and I'd like to see better for something like this.  None of our policies seem to require that the thing in question be certain to happen--they just ask for sources.  I can't see the article, so no clue on being overly promotional.  Hobit (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment A source dated 15 November 2017 from Poker news Daily states, "It looks like a thirteenth license will be added, as well, as the bill opened the door for the Live! Hotel and Casino Philadelphia to begin construction."  Emphasis on the "it looks like", as this means that construction has not begun, and construction was on hold at the end of October 2017.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you point at some policy or guideline that indicates that matters? Even if it never gets built, I think it would be over the WP:N bar and so might make sense to keep  (though under a different name perhaps).  But maybe I'm missing something obvious. Hobit (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability? What did I say about notability?I assume that I could write a proper and neutral article about this plan.  But the title of the article would identify that it is a plan (or project or proposal).  It would all be in past tense.  It would not have an infobox.  Readers would like it because it would tell them something they can verify and rely on, not a science fiction story about 2020.  An article about the plan will be timeless, rather than being subject to being rewritten in 2020.The point of the recent news story from which I quoted, is to show just how far away from reality the reified view of 2020 is.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be arguing for a rename and some changes to the article content, rather than a deletion (though I can't understand exactly what content changes you would like to see). Your arguments about the name are simply not consistent with how other articles about proposed or canceled buildings are titled. See Category:Proposed buildings and structures and Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures. They are almost universally titled simply by the proposed building's name, not as a "plan" or "proposal". Toohool (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sentences written three years in the future in future tense are guaranteed to not be timeless. You concede that sources from 2020 are not available, and that WP:DEL6 applies to articles that "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources.".  Nor do you deny that reifying a commercial property that doesn't exist is promotional puffery.  And your defense is that we would have to add the word "plan" or "proposal" or "project" to the title of the article?As for having separate articles for the planning and post-opening phases, see the Lewis and Clark Bridge (Ohio River), which opened in December 2016, and the Ohio River Bridges Project, which dates back to before 2004.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your argument is not based in reality. Can you point to a single sentence in the article that is "written three years in the future in future tense"? Can you point to a single thing in the article that is not "attributed to reliable sources"? Can you point to anything in the article that is "promotional puffery"? Toohool (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Those might be difficult questions for him, so I'll answer. The answer to all three questions is no.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article already makes clear that the building doesn't exist yet (at least to anyone with half a brain). There's no need to put it in the article title. There are already plenty of reliable sources for the project. But if it would make you feel better, I'll fire up my flux capacitor to 2020 and report back to you with new sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment With this edit, Rusf10 has removed the report that the current number of rooms in the hotel is 240.  The future tense is also gone.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2017 (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.