Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carillon Point Marina

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 Delete. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carillon Point Marina[edit]

Delete nn business per WP:NOTDIR Mayalld (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable buisness, delete per WP:NOTDIR, Google only has 656 hits. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 18:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning. Basement12 (T.C) 01:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. It gets a few passing mentions in the local papers for the restaurants there. The non-directory entry stuff was purged as copyvio of primary sources. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The multiple references to the restaurants there (I added a second reference) are an assertion of notability. In general, though, I would like to draw parallels between railway stations and port facilities; the simple fact that they exist (or that they once existed) is a strong hint that reliable sources about them exist and that they ought to be considered automatically notable. As I said at another AfD,I don't think that including listings for marinas is in violation of WP:NOT, any more than having listings for dead politicians or dead popes. There are parallels between ports and railway stations which would argue in favor of automatic notability for at least some ports (and airports as well, although I realize that at least one small airfield has been deleted at AfD. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. This "editor" is adding at least four articles per business day, all following the same format of creating an article, scraping basic content word for word from 1-2 official/government websites, sourcing some of it, adding a template, adding the article to List of marinas and then ignoring, recreating or readding content to the minority of articles that get deleted or tagged for copyvio or other violations.

The "editor" ignores warnings concerning notability and copyright violations, and solicited suggestions concerning how to write articles to make them notable, such as including news, history or any other content sourced to anything remotely resembling WP:RS.

The question is: are these daily 4x cut-n-paste articles worth all the copy-vio corrections, fact checking, sourcing, categorizing, template cleanup and portapotty info removal? If so, then are you going to fix 8x articles a day? Then 16x? 32x?Flowanda | Talk 08:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and in the absence of dialogue with the user consider a block. There is merely spamming in another form. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:29, 2 September 2008 (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.