Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commune by the Great Wall


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Commune by the Great Wall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable hotel. Highly promotional. scope_creep (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment It is somewhat notable when using the Chinese name of the building complex to search, as i remember there is a TV program that cover the architectural feature of the complex. However, the article may heavily contributed by COI SPA for years, while the original version by in 2007, may involve in copyvio. (source not found yet).


 * Also, individual buildings of the complex are covered by some architectural book. e.g.  Matthew_hk   t  c  12:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  Matthew_hk   t  c  12:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  Matthew_hk   t  c  12:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a notable hotel that has been featured in multiple travel and architecture magazines and books (such as 1,000 Places to See Before You Die, Travel+Leisure, and ArcSpace). The villas are designed by a number of big-name architects such as Kengo Kuma (see Arch Daily and Kuma's website). It also won an award at the 2002 Venice Bienale (see magazine). Article needs to be cleaned up and promotional content removed (I've deleted the kids club section as a first step), but the subject is notable. -Zanhe (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Zanhe if you think it is notable, I will withdraw the nomination, if another Keep voter turns up.scope_creep (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC) *Keep - per this NYT, non paid / advert article. Some sort of notability established. --Quek157 (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , is it sufficient to meet notability now? --Quek157 (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not nominated by me for deletion, my concern was about the article as a COI SPA target of adding promotional material . Matthew_hk  t  c  11:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * very sorry ping the wrong guy.corrected Quek157 (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment - I thank the wrong ping, given me a chance to reexamine, major authors are all socks which are banned. I see it not as COI but possible COPYVIO . Given 66.7% I really think a major rewrite is needed. This should be a G12 and a G11. However, should not prejudice the recreation on reliable sources. --Quek157 (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC) tagged as such also --Quek157 (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC) In addition, should also be a G5. As all major content creators are banned users and socks, with the other edits getting rid of those issues to a very little degree. but given G11/G12, I will not tag G5. --Quek157 (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - per all the G11/G12 done. And notablity is there --Quek157 (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep since subject seems to meet (albeit barely) the notability criteria. Extra vigilance for promotional verbiage is required in such articles. This was infested by it, though I removed most of the stinky, brown mouthed text. -The Gnome (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment- I would object to say seems to meet as per WP:GNG, the above information are more than enough to meet it. To address advert concerns, I G11 / G12 reported the page and the page it is currently at (before all your removing of information - WP:BOLD or otherwise) is vetted by an admin as non promotional and non copyrighted. --Quek157 (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * clear gng, corpdepth met case just to add Quek157 (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2018 (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.