Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahía del Duque


 * 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 List of hotels in Spain. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  03:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Bahía del Duque

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hotel failing [WP:GNG]. No coverage found except routine listings in travel guides/travel related websites. One of the three references is a dead link, the other two are not independent secondary sources. Had been tagged with REFIMPROV for about six months, but that was removed today (without justification) by a SPA who probably has a COI. MB 14:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Almost no reliable sources about it. Interestingly enough, the Spanish language article on it has been deleted twice. Joseph2302 17:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect to List of hotels in Spain. The list-article serves good purpose of holding mention of significant hotels so that they each do not need an article.  Items in the list-article can/should contain some information besides just the name of the hotel (e.g. 356 rooms for this one) but should be supported by references.  There are too many AFDs about tall buildings and hotel buildings, which create unnecessary conflict between those who support having zero coverage (with deletion of all past discussion about sources etc. at its Talk page and all of the article's edit history, thereby losing even links to AFDs) vs. having too much coverage (in an under-reviewed article that tends to become promotional).  The appropriate answer is inbetween:  cover the building in the corresponding list-article, using proper references.  The redirect's edit history and Talk page provide record of sources and debates.  AFDs are not needed unless there is a dispute about merging;  try merging the material first, before opening an AFD. -- do  ncr  am  00:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Redirect to List of hotels in Spain is a good solution. Otherwise it's WP:PROMO and nothing else. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete  Varun FEB2003    13:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.