Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VEGAS.com (2nd 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 no consensus. Although the article appears to barely meet requirements, sourcing is weak, and needs a lot of cleanup to prevent it from being WP:PROMO. there is currently no consensus to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VEGAS.com

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Chatty, gossipy article about a website meant to draw tourism to Las Vegas. Page history shows it to be created and edited by several SPAs. Indeed, it basically devolves into unsourced describing of adverts for Las Vegas at the end, and the rest of it is at the level of a company newsletter. I don't think this really meets any level of WP:NOTABILITY. 86.** IP (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the previous AfD it was kept as meeting WP:WEB. The article has numerous sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous AfD was in 2007; after 5 years, I think it's time for a reevaluation. Do you seriously think any of the sources in the article establishes notability? If so, which? 86.** IP (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National and local press[1][2][3][4] Also several references in Travel Weekly, a long-running trade publication.[5][6][7][8] Notability is not temporary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure most of those are press releases. remember that notability requires independent coverage; only the first of those looks to be much more than a recycled press release, and said first link is so rambly and stream-of-consciousness that it doesn't have substantial content, the other requirementThere's also WP:MILL - every city has a website now, the minor coverage doesn't show vegas.com to be at all notable compared to the thousands, if not millions, of others. 86.** IP (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads like a puff piece, little in the way of a subjective analysis. The article serves to promote the site and enumerate the services offered, without any critique raising concerns over NPOV. This is a long-standing article so there has been plenty of time to solve these issues: that this has not been done does not bode well for a number of editors becoming involved and carrying the article forward. Given those concerns and the low probability of it being brought into line in the foreseeable future the "total rewrite required" deletion criteria seems to apply strongly here. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources and passes WP:GNG, including the following, which are NOT press release reprints; they're written by staff reporters:

Las Vegas Review-Journal – Vegas.com partners with Mexico.com
Las Vegas Sun – Travel site upgrades trip packaging
Ad Week – Vegas.com Takes Pole Position
The New York Times – Staying Close to the Heart and Spectacle of Las Vegas

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still say WP:MILL applies. 86.** IP (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstaining- But Alexa ranking compared to the municipality might be of interest. Dru of Id (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above. Definitely meets WP:GNG. Should be cleaned up - it is a bit advert-ish - but that's not what AfD is for. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.