Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VEGAS.com (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Sources (now) clearly indicate notability, as suggested also by comments below, with thanks to all. Drmies (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

VEGAS.com
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This meets CSD A7 (in my opinion) but prior AFD makes it ineligble so I am restoring and bringing it here.  Spinning Spark  13:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Longstanding highly prominent website.  Examples of sources were provided in the last AfD.  Another one is this 2003 New York Times article about the website and its business model.   The problem is that there's such a large volume of self-promotional material on the web that it drowns out the much smaller, but still substantial supply of bona fide RS sources.  The same was true about the former, more detailed version of this page --some substantial info and a lot of advertising content; unfortunately the useful info was cut out along with all the spam.  This should get fixed, not deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why is this here again?  I suppose the failure of the last nomination to close as a keep like the first is the blame. Yes, this is a promotional web site for a resort destination.  So that is going to affect the content.  Does that mean it fails A7 of course not.  Nominator really should read the facts presented in the last nominations that failed to see what this one should also fail.  If you have a problem with the content then fix it!  AfD is not intended for article cleanup. Is anyone trying to say that this site fails WP:GNG? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly a notable website, as shown by the New York Times coverage linked to above.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  19:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't know about previous versions, I kind of assumed that the current version was the best version available, and the current version certainly has "no indication of importance" which is the A7 criterion.  Spinning  Spark  20:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Take a look at the version back in April, 2012, which was far longer and included many references to reliable sources. Yes, it was overly promotional, but instead of pruning judiciously, an editor chopped it to a stub.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  22:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The current article does not really make any effort to establish notability, but the site is notable.  Besides the NYT article above, I was able to locate several other articles on Google News. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. For source examples, see those that I've added to the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done, .  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:11, 17 November 2013 (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.