Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shades of Green


 * 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. per WP:SNOW; rename discussion should take place at talk page (non-admin closure) NW ( Talk ) 18:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Shades of Green

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable resort. Thepettythief (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep article / Remove Vote For Delete, first off Shades of Green like every other resort in Walt Disney World is notable and second this proposal was done by an anonymous user which as I am to understand can only be done by registered users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancing is Forbidden (talk • contribs) 23:57, 11 June 2009
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, First off the person that started this was an IP user. Suspect probable tag-and-go.  Shades of Green is a Disney resort just like any other.  If any Disney resort deserves a page, then this resort deserves one to. Marauder40 (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with your opinion that the starter is an IP user. There is no reason that an IP user can't start an AfD notice. Although the starter might have different views when starting the AfD, it's nothing wrong to start AfD just because he/she is an IP user. I support to keep this article, but IPs are humans too and should be treated like any registered user. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is as notable as any of the Disney hotels. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The AfD was started by a newly registered account, not an IP (which of course can't create pages). The main AfD page specifically suggests that IP users create accounts if they want to start AfD discussion, so there's nothing wrong with that. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify: the AfD notice was added to the article by an IP, yes, but there's no policy I know of that prevents that - WP:AfD says users must be logged in to create the AfD page but not to add the notice. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is nothing wrong to let an IP address to start an AfD notice. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable Disney resort. KuyaBriBri Talk 13:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. 'As notable as other Disney resorts' is a very unconvincing argument - what counts is the existence of sources. There's a NYT article already on the page and more are easy to find, so notability is clearly established. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some WP:RS that might help:, ,  , , . The USA Today articles should help those who want to dismiss the DoD ones. I also found coverage in the LA Times, Washington Post etc.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of in-depth coverage available in reliable sources. It is written like original research though, probably could stand a good haircut and some referencing. Drawn Some (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 14:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 14:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Absolutely no reasoning provided as to why the nom thinks it's "non-notable." The coverage as provided above is significant. --Oakshade (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename Shades of Green (resort) and redirect the current title to Variations of green (don't forget to adjust the hatnote there). Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is definitely notable. Even Reno's casinos have a template and individual articles, why should this article be deleted? --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, unquestionably notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2009 (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.