Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Luck Casino Marquette

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Luck Casino Marquette[edit]

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

Not notable casino. No evidence of awards or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. There are some routine licensing sources and a press release. PROD removed with the addition of the press release. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am trying to find out how to fix the article to be removed from the deletion process. I am new to Wiki I am not familiar/can't figure out the Talk system. What else do I need to do to fix the article. I added more citations and more information in the History. I am also trying to gather more information to build more integrity of the article. Davey5603 (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is prolific coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, as a simple Google News search attests. Toohool (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following that link, most of them seem to be adverts or WP:ROUTINE. Did you have any concrete examples of what you see as good sources? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] for a start. There's are also tons of substantial articles listed from the Cedar Rapids Gazette, but they are behind a paywall. A Factiva search also turns up coverage from the Associated Press of the major events in the casino's history, though mostly not found on free sites. Toohool (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasons already established! And why was this relisted when there is no support for a delete and deletion is clearly not supported by the facts? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was relisted because there was support for deletion from one participant and support for keeping the article from two. Usually I look for more than 2-1 when closing an Afd. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2013 (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.