Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spotlight 29 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  Ya  sh  !   15:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Spotlight 29 Casino

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines, specifically depth of sources. Most of the citations are to this casino's website, another is an entry about it in a trade magazine, and another is a news story that only mentions this casino as the location of an event. The additional citations tag has been on the page since 2007. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I would add that recently the page has been edited by someone claiming to handle this casino's PR. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of sources available to satisfy GNG:         Toohool (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Toohool has helpfully provided enough links to confirm that this article meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The coverage was not limited to local or gaming industry press, driven it seems by the affiliation with Trump, at the time. Even after Trump dropped out of any involvement, coverage continued and overall the extent of the coverage seems to me to meet the bar we set for lasting notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for the sources, but it's curious that no one added them in 8 or 9 years. 331dot (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and I would've also closed as such because this may be better now....and if not, nominate again if needed. SwisterTwister   talk  02:31, 8 February 2016 (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.