Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resorts World Casino


 * 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   redirect to Resorts World. The revision history of this article will remain intact. If anyone wants to merge content over to Aqueduct Racetrack, feel free. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 23:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Resorts World Casino

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is being contested. Launching to see if this article is worthy as there are many casino articles on Wikipedia. RWCasinoKid (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's very unusual for someone to nominate his or her own article for deletion! However, the article does need additional references in order to be "safe". Deb (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did it so the article could be reviewed and establish a consensus as to whether the article should be kept or deleted as opposed to a "WP:CSD" RWCasinoKid (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is fine, but it could use some more information. Look at other Casino articles for ideas. Frmorrison (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We have Parx Casino and Racing and Yonkers Raceway (and Empire City Casino), well written articles. Maybe you could help me find similar sources I could use for RW casino. RWCasinoKid (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's a casino - that is not enough to establish it is a WP:notable casino. This AFD was created when the author could not come up with a hangon rationale to prevent a speedy delete. noq (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * For the page title, redirect to Resorts World as a DAB page. As for the article itself, aside from renaming it to Resorts World New York City, a merge to Aqueduct Racetrack (i.e. create a new section) is probably better at this point. There has been a lot of coverage about the casino in the New York media, so you or another editor should be able to easily expand on it with a little work. A (legal) casino in New York City that rivals and is seen as a threat to longer established casinos in Atlantic City and Connecticut is certainly noteworthy in its own right. (I am User:Tinlinkin, but I am still on an indefinite hiatus from Wikipedia editing by my own choosing.) 173.2.183.225 (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Ambiguous title merge to Aqueduct Racetrack and then redirect title to the disambiguation page Resorts World, per User:Tinlinkin. There is more about the casino at Aqueduct Racetrack than here, and it is an integral part of the article. --Bejnar (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add a comment, if it isn't obvious already, this is a racino -- this casino is strongly tied to the parent racetrack. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was completed about 3 years ago. RWCasinoKid (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. No offense, RWCasinoKid, but I hate "fake" AFDs where the nominator doesn't actually want it deleted, but is "testing" consensus, i.e. using up wikipedia editors' attention for no good purpose.  So, I feel inclined to say, really, let's just delete it, if the creator thinks it is bad let's not argue.  However, RWCasinoKid is a new editor just started in May, and that would delete a substantial fraction of their edits, and would be wp:BITEy, and there is not adequate coverage in AFD policy/guidelines that "fake" AFDs should not be proposed / should be speedily closed.  Don't do it again, please, RWCasinoKid! -- do  ncr  am  04:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, consensus is important for what should be done with the article, but as I gain experiance I'll know what to do next time. RWCasinoKid (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While I trust that you have come to an understanding, I just wanted to weigh in here a little. It was noq who initially tagged the article for Speedy deletion A7, but RWCasinoKid then brought it to AFD. So I would not place all the blame on RWCasinoKid. But I agree with doncram that the deletion process (speedy or AFD) should not be used solely to bring attention to the nominated page. And as for suggestions for the article creator/nominator, the Sandbox or a user subpage is a good way to compose articles before you want them to be published. If you are unsure if they should be published, see Articles for creation. Tinlinkin (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * doncram, while your point about the AFD process is valid, it is my understanding that the history of most edits should be open and not be deleted if there is content to be merged (WP:CC BY-SA). And, due to the circumstances I presented in my AFD vote, particularly the page title is a manifestation of an ambiguous topic, I don't think a simple deletion can apply. I probably would have been WP:BOLD and simply redirected it with the page history intact so I could create a separate section in Aqueduct Racetrack at a later time, but I would rather wait until the AFD has been closed. Tinlinkin (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  16:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment, Well, User:Tinlinkin, if the article is deleted, you would not have access to its contents to use in developing a proper section in Aqueduct Racetrack]. I do think that redirecting to such a section, i.e. to something like Aqueduct Racetrack would be okay as an outcome here.  And if it is redirected rather than deleted, u and others would have access to the material provided so far. -- do  ncr  am  06:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirecting to Resorts World (disambiguation) would preserve the content in history for any further development of the article at Aqueduct Racetrack. Resorts World (disambiguation) is the better redirect, because almost all the Resorts World sites have casinos. --Bejnar (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2014 (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.