Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westgate Resorts


 * 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. Tyrenius 17:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Westgate Resorts
Non-notable article; subject of article is also the subject of several spam links in articles about Central Florida SwissCelt 12:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:CORP with exciting external coverage like Fitch Upgrades Classes of Notes for Westgate Resorts 1998-A, and . Kappa 05:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm pretty neutral about this one but I find the above links rather unconvincing. Pascal.Tesson 23:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning(talk) 13:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable company using WP as a advertising space   14:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to see how a company which is creating a $750 million building can be "non-notable". . Kappa 15:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. 7,000 employees and you say it's not-notable? It's a worldwide company. It definitely passes WP:CORP. The company's website has an Alexa web traffic ranking of 158,306, which does seem like a respectable ranking for a company website. -- Nish kid 64 18:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Technically, I said the article is non-notable, not the subject.  It's a fine distinction, and generally winds up meaning the same thing, but in this case I simply based my judgment of notability on the article itself.  In other words, the article does not indicate the notability of the subject in verifiable, NPOV tones. -- SwissCelt 11:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, they're major. I have to steal and hide their brochures from my dad now. --Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The article is now fully up-to-date and has become much more content based.


 * 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.