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. This article is still quite an ugly mess, but AfD is not cleanup, and at the very least the notability concerns have been addressed, and consensus seems apparent. Non-admin closure -- RoninBK _{T C} 14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Norconian Resort Supreme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete as per WP:N. Though it is very old but still it fails at notability. A book available on Google book talks about this resort but that doesn't establish its notability. In that case we may need to add all the resorts available in the world! -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!!! it will undoubtedly be added to over time, with more specific references, and the information presented is accurate (based on watching the PBS show California's Gold, which dedicated an entire episode to the topic).

• Keep. Seems notable if the article is accurate. Used for movies; frequented by celebrities of the day. Pburka (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Interesting so few still know about this resort given the national coverage this National Historic Registered site has gotten in the last year. What is remarkable about this site is all but one of the buildings, structures and features listed on the National Register are still intact. Over 60 news articles spanning across the nation have covered this tragic site. I will be expanding over the next few days, but, assuredly the article is accurate, simply unknown.

I have added additional information and responded to the writer who has called for deletion. I strongly recommend a review of previous calls for deletions by this individual. Sorry, wasn't sure how to sign this before --Norcobash (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norcobash (talk • contribs) 01:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved inappropriate comments to Talk page.) Sbowers3 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. ^That's uh, that's a quite bit. Anyway, if you have further references from newspapers, post them to the article. Five or six alone should be sufficient to establish notability and make this nasty AfD go away. Cel ^{Talk to me} 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Comprehensively documents notability. Article needs substantial Wikification to be a good Wikipedia article but has solid bones. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - now has sources to demonstrate notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 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.