Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropicana Casino and Resort Atlantic City


 * 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   speedy keep. WP:SPA nonsense. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Tropicana Casino and Resort Atlantic City

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

Just another non-notable casino that clogs up Wikipedia. Anyones Else For Nutley (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Um, your joking right? The Tropicana is very notable as is all of the other casino/hotels that are located in Atlantic City, New Jersey, I also question the this validity of User:Anyones Else For Nutley since they are a newbie and only created their account at 05:47GMT on 10 July 2009 and have no other edits on this or any other Wikipedia project, I think we should consider removing this Article for Deletion request instead of letting it go through the required 7 days. Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow ball keep. Do we really need to explain why this is notable?  If nothing else, the license revocation is notable. I undid the vandalism done to the article when it was tagged for nomination.  Anyones Else For Nutley appears to be a single purpose account. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete give me a break just because it lost their licence doesn't make them notable. Messing with sasquatch (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Single purpose account. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Mention of the casinos are already made in the city's main page no need to have a separate article. Bandlsittinginatree (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Single purpose account. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as requested by nominated don't see any real reason it should be there. BostonBakedBeanBob (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Note: Single purpose account. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Primarily because its commercialization. Amy and Kif Kroker (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Single purpose account. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I suspect that these Single purpose accounts came from the same person or at least from the same IP address and should be excluded because it is apparent that someone is trying their hardest to have an article deleted that is notable and does not violate any of Wikipedia's criteria in fact it meets the criteria. Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - I smell sockpuppets. Article is sufficiently referenced and appears notable. &mdash; Ledgend  Gamer  07:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, claims of being the largest in its state are sufficient alone. P.S., I really enjoyed the parade of redlinks above: really creative, if single-sided, thinking :)) NVO (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepErrr... how is it non-notable? Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  08:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. What's that smell?  Someone's dirty socks?  Subject is clearly notable in any case.  ReverendWayne (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keepRcurtis5 (talk) 14:30, 10 July 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.