Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudbury Downs and Slots

Sudbury Downs and Slots

Two races nights per week makes a race track notable? I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since there isn't a claim to notability. If it's kept, move to Sudbury Downs, since that seems to be the name of the race track (I've no idea why the rest of the title exists). - Bobet 22:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Chelmsford, Ontario. -- JJay 23:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge would be better than nothing, but still not quite appropriate; it's a regional attraction. Samaritan 07:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer a keep, but the track is located in Chelmsford, Ontario, which could use some content. -- JJay 08:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:CORP, does not even claim notability. Delete. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any guideline which would clarify the difference between a notable horse racing track and a non-notable one? Because I'm frankly not too clear on how this is inherently less notable than a lot of other horse racing tracks — granted, it's never hosted the Kentucky Derby, but if that were Wikipedia's baseline standard for inclusion of a racetrack, then Churchill Downs would be the only racetrack on here. Which it's not. What, then, is the baseline standard? How would I determine which of the 16 race tracks in Ontario (Clinton Raceway, Dresden Raceway, Flamboro Downs, Fort Erie Race Track, Georgian Downs, Grand River Raceway, Hanover Raceway, Hiawatha Horse Park, Kawartha Downs, Mohawk Racetrack, Rideau Carleton Raceway, Sudbury Downs, Western Fair Raceway, Windsor Raceway, Woodbine Racetrack and Woodstock Raceway) merit articles and which don't? The bottom line for me is, I see no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't all have articles, and no policy or guideline that says they can't, so I have to vote to keep & expand on this one. WP:CORP has nothing whatsoever to do with articles on sports venues. Bearcat 18:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. Evil Eye 00:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's also the closest/only racetrack facility for an extremely large catchement area in Northern Ontario, and the closest/only casino gaming facility for a smaller but still very large area. If a tourist attraction draws regular bus groups from cities hours away, it is notable; Sudbury Downs does and is. Keep. Samaritan 07:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. Snurks ^{T C} 07:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unless they are doing it for free, please do provide a link more relevent than WP:CORP. This gets eight Google hits and Zero news hits. It's not notable. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 08:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment maybe Sudbury Downs and Slots get only 8 hits, but 'Sudbury Downs' gets over 10,000 hits. Maybe an alternative couldbe a re-direct to Sudbury Downs or Sudbury Downs (Race track) as the 'slots' part only appears to be a small part of hat the site is about. Evil Eye 12:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CORP is not the standard applied to sports venues. It's not the standard applied to arenas. It's not the standard applied to football stadia. It's not the standard applied to baseball parks. When I find what is the standard for sports venues, I'll let you know...but WP:CORP ain't it. And as the comment above mine points out, if you only get eight Google hits for this, you're using the wrong search term. Bearcat 17:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't use the "wrong" search term, thank you very much. Perhaps the article had the "wrong" title? Regardless, of the 10K plus hits that the more general search yields, I'm not seeing anything that says "notable" to me. Lots of these are for the area, not the venue. Of course Google isn't everything, but:
    - "Sudbury Downs" + race 500 unimpressive hits
    - "Sudbury Downs" + track 700 unimpressive hits
    - "Sudbury Downs" on news seven unimpressive hits
  - As to WP:CORP, it's for "economic entit[ies]", of which this is clearly one. If the Mavalli Tiffin Rooms fall under this guideline (which they do) then so do sporting venues.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second most important sports venue (the first has this stub here) in one of Canada's twenty most populous census divisions. Samaritan 01:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, I don't want to come across like I've got some special burning need to see this deleted, but I'm in love with WP:V. Who says it's the "second most important sports venue", that's all I'm saying. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]