Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide Six

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Six[edit]

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

non notable ski resort, enitre article unsourced advert Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found to establish notability. I declined a g11 that was placed in good faith by Gaijin42 as a result of recent promotional edits, once I backed those edits out. Syrthiss (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The resort is notable because of its early history in Vermont's downhill skiing. Several good sources are available through a Google Books search with search term: "suicide six" vermont. I would add them myself, but am now editing using a mobile phone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cullen328 is correct: GBooks and GNews reveal plentiful potential sources about this early ski resort. I've added 2 to start. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable ski resort that passes WP:GNG. For starters, see: [1], [2], [3]. Also, the article has sources in it at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as promotional edits can simply be reverted. If the Smithsonian writes about a ski resort, and it was once owned by a Rockefeller, I'd venture that there's reason to keep it. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. enough coverage in reliable sources exist to pass WP:GNG, as Zanimum says, promotional content can be removed, we shouldn't delete articles which can be fixed by editing. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the resort is obviously notable. It has good coverage in sources. →TSU ^tp* 17:31, 13 June 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.