Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Rock Resort Spa and Casino

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. – ABCD 19:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Red Rock Resort Spa and Casino
Advert for a future business. SWAdair | Talk 07:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) (comment by 65.41.248.221) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep This is not an advert. It is a page documenting a major construction project that, from it's announcement, has been a hot political topic in the area.  I don't see how someone would think that an $800 million project by the world's largest local casino operator would need advertising on wiki.  If the decision is to delete this page, then there are many other building related pages that also will need deletion, like Wynn Las Vegas.
 * Re Wynn Las Vegas: consider it nominated. Any others? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral, I'd like to see more proof of political debate surrounding the proejct for this to be kept. Unless proof can be provided of some major press or political interest this is just another future casino. We can always put it back when it's in business. Mgm|(talk) 08:52, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Articles exist in the Review Journal and Las Vegas Sun newspapers on the political debate. The tower has been erected, so this is a project that is happening.  In any case, why pick on this project when pages for similar projects were allowed?
 * I'm not picking on this page in particular. I just happened to notice it. And also, note that I'd be happy to keep the article if more sources are provided. You don't need to take a deletion discussion personal. Mgm|(talk) 09:35, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the reaction. The newspapers are the only available sources, don't know how to show them to you.  Don't know if it made the national press.
 * Delete, not notable (yet). Megan1967 08:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable local development. --SPUI (talk) 09:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, delete until it is completed. Radiant_* 09:12, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * What part of "Ground was broken late in 2004 for the project." don't you understand? This thing is being built. --SPUI (talk) 09:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What part of 'delete until it is completed' don't you understand? :) Radiant_* 10:11, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * How is a project like this non-notable, even if not completed? In fact, being started and not completed often makes something MORE notable. --SPUI (talk) 11:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What is difficult to understand about Radiant's crystal ball analogy is that we don't need to use a crystal ball to see this project. Perhaps we should delete ITER, they can't even decide where to build that. Kappa 13:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If you feel we should delete that, list it. Of course, you don't, and that comparison is flawed. My analogy of course refers to the policy quoted below by Dpbsmith. Read WP:WIN for details. Radiant_* 15:02, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please explain why WP:WIN applies to this article and not ITER. Kappa 15:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Never mind, I take it your vote meant something like "This project isn't notable now but might be notable when completed, at which time we can reconsider". Kappa 16:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a major project currently underway. Capitalistroadster 10:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment This is one of the fuller Nevada hotel articles that the original editor has contributed . The real question is whather we need a different article for each hotel and casino in Las Vegas and Reno. --Henrygb 10:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is that a problem? These are real places. --SPUI (talk) 11:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * So is the Tree in my parent's backyard. And I'm afraid your comparison to lesser characters from a well-known animation series is not very relevant to this discussion. Radiant_* 13:09, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * SPUI, while I admit that was kinda funny, please see WP:POINT. Android79 16:42, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep major construction projects. Kappa 12:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, or transWiki to Wikitravel, unless a very convincing explanation is provided as to why the project is important in its present state, such as having made the national news because of controversy. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, Wikipedia is not a directory, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. "Articles about books, movies, games, and software that are about to be released within the next few months should be considered advertising, unless convincingly shown otherwise." The same should apply to construction projects. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment No hits found for phrase "Red Rock Resort" in New York Times online database. The political debate surrounding its construction is not important enough for the New York Times to have noticed it. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Construction projects are out there to be seen by passers-by, and easily verifiable. Unreleased media is unverifiable. --SPUI (talk) 15:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the future importance of the project is not verifiable. The usual claimed rationale for articles on about-to-be-released things is that they are certain to be big hits. What reason is there to think that Red Rock Resort Spa and Casino is going to have more than local significance after it is complete? And what is the urgent reason for including it now rather than later? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * "And what is the urgent reason for including it now rather than later?" It's already written up; it's stupid to delete it, only to write it up again if it become notable enough for the deletionists. --SPUI (talk) 15:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - real, notable both by inherent nature and scale. Jgm 14:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow for organic growth; appears to be a valid and encyclopedic article. On Wikipedia, we have room for fictitious laws in the make believe Star Wars universe; fictitious gym trainers from the world of Pokémon; and Star Trek characters so utterly minor they only appear in a single episode.  We certainly have room for this as well.  --GRider\talk 18:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is hardly an ad; it's consistant with the many short articles about Las Vegas casinos, and there is room for organic expansion. Me, I'm just hoping it has a nice poker room when it opens. (Disclaimer: I've been watching it under construction for the last year or so.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major projects like this belong in Wiki.--Gene_poole 00:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is notable and not an advert. Wincoote 13:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)