Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sycamore Trails Pool

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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 15:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sycamore Trails Pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

no assertion of notability. No sources to verify information. This "pool" reportedly won an award back in 1997, but the organization that doled out the reward does not even have a Wikipedia article Keeper | 76 00:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge & Redirect: If that award is something special, Merge the info into Miamisburg, Ohio and redirect the page there. Otherwise, it isn't notable, so delete. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and Rjd.   jj137 (Talk) 01:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the award is from a national group with thousands of members. If anything, this group may merit on an article in its own right. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assuming that is correct, would you still be against a merge and redirect? - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would not be opposed to a merge and redirect without deleting (i.e. in case if the pool achieves further notability, it would then be easy to restore and expand the article). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article consists of one line which is atributed to an unreliable source, and so is not verifyable - the award does not seem to be prominent and even if proven probably wouldn't supply the depth of coverage to establish notability. [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
• Merge and redirect. I'm about as inclusionist as they come, but I wasn't able to find anything on google or altavista to support its notability, and there doesn't seem to be much material with which to expand it. Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2007 (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.