Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Las Vegas Arena


 * 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) 02:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

New Las Vegas Arena

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Too crystal ball-ish. There was apparently the beginnings of a plan that fell through (it was supposed to have opened around now), and there's no real plan now. A new article can be created if and when any real plans develop. In short, this is barely notable vaporware.oknazevad (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is still very much alive and there is significant coverage of this through last month in various media.  There is also an active petition for a ballot initiative in the works. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  10:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Doubtful The article seems to talk as if the only proposals were this arena and a now-abandoned downtown arena - but my reading of the sources suggest that there are actually three "New Arena" proposals still in the works. I am not from the area and am not sure what is really going on, but I question the neutrality of this article, if it is talking about just one of the proposed "new arenas" and ignoring others. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep - Article exhibits adequate sourcing to sneak over the notability bar, in my opinion. If anyone felt strongly about NOT NEWS or CRYSTAL BALL here, that could also be easily argued. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep this shouldn't have been created in the first place since nothing is solid, but since it is created and there are enough references to demonstrate notability, it should be keep.— Chris! c / t 18:59, 15 September 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.