Talk:Parkdean Holidays: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m Signing comment by 188.220.34.63 - "" |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
OTOH, articles like [[Haven & British Holidays]] ''also'' lack [[WP:A]], so [[WP:Verifiability]] does not seem to apply to [[amusement park]]s as long as they ''at least'' have their own website, which is why I'm not going to waste any more time (or tags, like <code>{{tl|Notability}}</code>) on this article. ''<Heavy Sigh!>'' —{{User|68.239.79.82}} 11:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
OTOH, articles like [[Haven & British Holidays]] ''also'' lack [[WP:A]], so [[WP:Verifiability]] does not seem to apply to [[amusement park]]s as long as they ''at least'' have their own website, which is why I'm not going to waste any more time (or tags, like <code>{{tl|Notability}}</code>) on this article. ''<Heavy Sigh!>'' —{{User|68.239.79.82}} 11:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
This page looks like a commericial listing. I would bin it under SPAM. There is nothing notable about Park Dean Holidays. |
This page looks like a commericial listing. I would bin it under SPAM. There is nothing notable about Park Dean Holidays. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.220.34.63|188.220.34.63]] ([[User talk:188.220.34.63|talk]]) 10:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Latest revision as of 10:19, 15 March 2010
As documented by its edit history, this article has been speedy deleted and recreated/restored beau coup times by the author and various admins ... I have placed the {{Orphan}} tag on it because no other articles reference it, and the {{PrimarySources}} tag because the only WP:Attribution is a link to the subject's own website.
I really don't care anymore if it stays or goes (I did the most recent {{db-repost}} while on WP:NPP, BTW), but I suspect that based upon (a) it's failure to satisfy the sole criterion for Notability (organizations and companies) ("it has been the subject of secondary sources"), and (b) the author's failure to make the simple improvements suggested by the most recent restoring admin, a {{db-inc}}}} or {{prod}} would not be declined.
OTOH, articles like Haven & British Holidays also lack WP:A, so WP:Verifiability does not seem to apply to amusement parks as long as they at least have their own website, which is why I'm not going to waste any more time (or tags, like {{Notability}}) on this article. <Heavy Sigh!> —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 11:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This page looks like a commericial listing. I would bin it under SPAM. There is nothing notable about Park Dean Holidays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.34.63 (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)