Talk:Westin Las Vegas

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 November 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles

Gambling Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Click here to create the mediation request for this article.

Advertising

This appears to be an advertising page. Perhaps it was posted in Wikipedia by mistake Pdburns 20:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion rationale

Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks): single hotel in chain, no indication of independent notability given. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User bias

Currently in dispute with this user over his flagging articles for deletion instead of tagging for external references. You can see the dispute at [Deletion of valid articles by Largoplazo and Orangemike]. Please do not delete this until a resolution is made on this by by the mediation cabal. --BoldSolitude (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time, these articles fail the same standards for indication of notability that hundreds of articles fail, and are speedily deleted for, every single day. It has nothing to do with bias, and I am sick and tired of your baseless accusations, while you in the meantime choose to do absolutely nothing to remedy the actual problems with these articles or any of the others that you pointed out to me. Since you continue to maintain that this is about anything other than WP:Notability and WP:Speedy deletion, I'm going to assume that you have continued to fail to read any of the information I pointed you to regarding these matters. These are the principles that govern the issues involved here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let a mediator look at this and make a decision. I don't want to continue arguing. These articles meet the notability guidlines for reasons I stated on the mediation cabal. Also, if you or orangemike read the flag tag for deletion it says If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add: hangon directly below this tag, and then explain why you believe this article should not be deleted on its talk page. This will alert administrators to permit you the time to write your explanation. Also, the hangon tag says The speedy deletion of this page is contested. The person placing this notice intends to dispute the speedy deletion of this article on this page's talk page, and requests that this page not be deleted in the meantime. Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon. I never got a chance to even contest Boulder Station, it was deleted seconds after you flagged it. How is that a justifiable deletion? Again, I suggested flagging these articles for external reference request for reasons why they are notable and not flag for deletion. You then went through and started flagging another page. The westin article mentions that one of the most infamous murders of US history took place there. I think that's notable. Also, the reason you gave isn't accurate. Westin hotels is also a huge conglomerate. I don't understand why you continue to be so hostile about this. My main argument here is that these pages should have been given time (at least 24hrs) for discussion. You avoid addressing that issue, instead you keep linking to the notability page when I gave reasons in mediation cabal page why these meet the notability guidelines. Please read all my previous responses if you haven't already. I would like to reach an amicable conclusion to this so I will leave it up to the mediator to decide.--BoldSolitude (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thugz-network.com is a citation-worthy source?

How about just some contemporaneous newspaper articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainsane (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]