Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero-entry swimming 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 to Swimming pool. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zero-entry swimming pool

Perhaps to delete, rescue or merge with Swimming pool? -- -- Daniel Jones (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sports-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repaired the AfD using template afd2. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, hardly notable on its own merits. If anything it would be commented on as a type of pool in the swimming pool article. I guess you could call that a merge if you wanted as it would contain pretty much all the information from the original article. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as is indicated by the comment to the delete !vote above, I'm fine with a merge. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I can say that I have never heard this term before, a google search shows that this is something that resorts and hotels promote as something more attractive than an "ordinary" swimming pool "zero+entry+pool"&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g3. It's logical to assume that people who wonder what the hell a "zero entry pool" is would consult Wikipedia to find out, just as one might look up a "3G network". Given that there is a history behind the design and popularity of this type of swimming hole, I think also that it goes beyond burial in the Wiktionary. Mandsford (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Swimming pool per Mandsford, as I don't think there is enough that can be said as a standalone article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to swimming pool. I agree with Mandsford that "zero entry swimming pool" is a probable search term but I don't see it as a justification for keeping the separate page. Individually, the article fails to meet the notability guidelines and clearly falls under WP:NOTDIC. — Rankiri (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to swimming pool per Mandsford. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and set redirect to swimming pool. What sources are avaialble all refer to this as a specific and special type of pool. With a happy nod to User:Mandsford, a merge and redirect of this rather short stub puts the information exactly where it has context, exactly where a reader might expect to find it, and prevents relegation to the wictionary. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - I agree with the comments above, there aren't enough sources for an article on this. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Per Mandsford. As an aside, I only recently began coming across this term, and think it is important to include in Wikipedia - if there is not enough info for a standalone article (at least not yet), then including within swimming pool makes sense. But hotels and resorts are now plugging these due to easier access, especially for children, elderly and perhaps haandicapped. Rlendog (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a section in the swimming pool article for all the reasons given above.--Gloriamarie (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2009 (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.