- 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. ( non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ 21 Call me Hahc21 01:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Chessington World of Adventures Resort
- Chessington World of Adventures Resort ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
advertising The Banner talk 00:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep An article about a notable 82 year old zoo and amusement park is not an "advertisement" and unless evidence of a payment to the Wikimedia Foundation in exchange is provided, the ad claim should be withdrawn. This zoo is covered in a multi-volume encyclopedia of zoos here. Overly promotional content should be corrected through normal editing, not deletion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: The article relies substanially on selfpub'd references, but this is
not a reason for deletion. Keep and clean it up, or tag it and someone will be along shortly.
Ivanvector (
talk) 05:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- You mean that someone will remove the advertising in 2025? The Banner talk 11:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Major UK theme park. Extensive coverage in tourist guides/reviews
[1]
[2](pp82-102)
[3]
[4] and in news whenever something goes wrong
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]. --
Colapeninsula (
talk) 10:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- That may be true, but it is plain promo not a neutral description. The Banner talk 11:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Chessington World of Adventures Resort is a theme park, zoo and hotel in South West London, England. It lies 12 miles (19 km) south of Central London, in the Chessington area of the Kingston upon Thames borough. Historically opened as Chessington Zoo in 1931, an amusement park was developed alongside the zoo, opening in 1987" sounds like a neutral description to me. Much of the rest of the article likewise. It isn't even tagged for promotional/advertising content. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 13:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Opening times? The Banner talk 13:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - No valid rationale for deletion presented, as AfD is not cleanup; Chessington World of Adventures Resort is a major UK theme park with enormous amounts of coverage in the press. Banner, did you even attempt a Google search?
Lukeno94
(tell Luke off here) 12:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Did you read the article?? The Banner talk 13:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I did. The article is not even that much of an advert, and I've no idea what's provoked this crusade, but it's very heavily misguided. You'd be better off withdrawing all of these AfDs; pretty much all of the things you nominated are clearly notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Zoo/park that easily meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. WP:Deletion is not cleanup seems to apply here. Martin451 15:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Article subject easily meets WP:GNG, and AfD is not for cleanup, as others have noted. — sparklism hey! 10:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Of course. Sometimes I really don't think we're taking this project seriously. The nominator needs to realise the difference between the way an article is written and the notability of the subject. Only the latter is grounds for deletion. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 16:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Aha, when you don't have proper arguments, just attack the nominator.
The Banner
talk 23:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Aha, when you don't have proper arguments, just attack the nominator.
- Come on Banner, his point is clearly valid, given the fact that you're still insisting on keeping open this AfD on a highly notable theme park, when the article isn't even that promotional. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Banner, it might be most helpful if you went to the Chessington talk page and articulated exactly what you dislike about the page ('promotional' is a rather subjective adjective) - I wouldn't mind making the changes for you. Earflaps ( talk) 23:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Absurd nomination regarding a major theme park of long standing.-- A bit iffy ( talk) 12:21, 21 December 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.
- 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. ( non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ 21 Call me Hahc21 01:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Chessington World of Adventures Resort
- Chessington World of Adventures Resort ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
advertising The Banner talk 00:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep An article about a notable 82 year old zoo and amusement park is not an "advertisement" and unless evidence of a payment to the Wikimedia Foundation in exchange is provided, the ad claim should be withdrawn. This zoo is covered in a multi-volume encyclopedia of zoos here. Overly promotional content should be corrected through normal editing, not deletion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: The article relies substanially on selfpub'd references, but this is
not a reason for deletion. Keep and clean it up, or tag it and someone will be along shortly.
Ivanvector (
talk) 05:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- You mean that someone will remove the advertising in 2025? The Banner talk 11:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Major UK theme park. Extensive coverage in tourist guides/reviews
[1]
[2](pp82-102)
[3]
[4] and in news whenever something goes wrong
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]. --
Colapeninsula (
talk) 10:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- That may be true, but it is plain promo not a neutral description. The Banner talk 11:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Chessington World of Adventures Resort is a theme park, zoo and hotel in South West London, England. It lies 12 miles (19 km) south of Central London, in the Chessington area of the Kingston upon Thames borough. Historically opened as Chessington Zoo in 1931, an amusement park was developed alongside the zoo, opening in 1987" sounds like a neutral description to me. Much of the rest of the article likewise. It isn't even tagged for promotional/advertising content. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 13:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Opening times? The Banner talk 13:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - No valid rationale for deletion presented, as AfD is not cleanup; Chessington World of Adventures Resort is a major UK theme park with enormous amounts of coverage in the press. Banner, did you even attempt a Google search?
Lukeno94
(tell Luke off here) 12:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Did you read the article?? The Banner talk 13:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I did. The article is not even that much of an advert, and I've no idea what's provoked this crusade, but it's very heavily misguided. You'd be better off withdrawing all of these AfDs; pretty much all of the things you nominated are clearly notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Zoo/park that easily meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. WP:Deletion is not cleanup seems to apply here. Martin451 15:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Article subject easily meets WP:GNG, and AfD is not for cleanup, as others have noted. — sparklism hey! 10:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Of course. Sometimes I really don't think we're taking this project seriously. The nominator needs to realise the difference between the way an article is written and the notability of the subject. Only the latter is grounds for deletion. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 16:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Aha, when you don't have proper arguments, just attack the nominator.
The Banner
talk 23:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Aha, when you don't have proper arguments, just attack the nominator.
- Come on Banner, his point is clearly valid, given the fact that you're still insisting on keeping open this AfD on a highly notable theme park, when the article isn't even that promotional. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Banner, it might be most helpful if you went to the Chessington talk page and articulated exactly what you dislike about the page ('promotional' is a rather subjective adjective) - I wouldn't mind making the changes for you. Earflaps ( talk) 23:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Absurd nomination regarding a major theme park of long standing.-- A bit iffy ( talk) 12:21, 21 December 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.