Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covent Garden Hotel


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Covent Garden Hotel

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Breaks Wikipedia is not a Travel guide guideline. No references other than its own site and does not satisfy general notability guidelines. Grim23 ★ 18:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator should have looked for sources before nominating the article. Five-star hotels invariably are the subject of multiple reliable sources. In this case, here are articles from The Times and the Daily Telegraph: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/where_to_stay/article5874018.ece  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/londonandsoutheast/722077/Paddy-Burt-The-Covent-Garden-Hotel-London.html    -- Eastmain (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't questioning its existence but its notability. I did read the those sources and couldn't find anything other than reviews which didn't reveal much other than travel guide like details. Also I couldn't find who awarded the hotel five star status the AA and Visit Britain haven't. (btw sorry for my late answer, I had to go out unexpectedly) Grim</b><b style="color:#CC0000">2</b><b style="color:#FF0000">3</b> ★ 19:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The reviews are significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
 * Keep per the sources above demonstrating passing WP:N. It took me 10 seconds to find the sources Eastmain found.  The quickest I've been able to start an AfD is 1 minute.  I've said before, WP:BEFORE should be a requirement. --Oakshade (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read WP:BEFORE, although I'm new to this area and still learning. <b style="color:#000000">G</b><b style="color:#660000">ri</b><b style="color:#990000">m</b><b style="color:#CC0000">2</b><b style="color:#FF0000">3</b> ★ 19:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mmm a 5 star hotel in London, a city which has a number of the elite hotels in the world . Not notable? Maybe, but sources are abundant and the article is barely 48 hours old. Is this nomination done in good faith or it is another WP:IDON'TLIKEIT? Article could be expanded (fully).  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 20:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources demonstrate compliance with WP:ORG. In general, top-end hotels are notable because they are extensively written about. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep probably a joke nomination.--<b style="font-family:Rockwell; color:blue;">Sky Attacker</b>   the legend reborn...  21:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Another one where a quick Google search would've come up with some good sources.  fetch  comms  ☛ 21:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- looks rather too close to advertising to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The current state of the article looking close to advertising is an article improvement issue, not a notability one.--Oakshade (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Covered in multiple reliable sources, as demonstrated in the article's own references. WP:NOTTRAVEL is meant to exclude trivial or subjective sightseeing information, not to block articles on notable establishments. --RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Is this a joke?  I don't know or care, but the subject looks notable.  JBsupreme (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Covered in reliable source-- SPhilbrick  T  23:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems as if there is enough notable, reliable 3rd-party coverage; a simple Google search indicates that there are sufficient sources (to me). Perhaps some point of view issues, but this is not grounds for deletion, as the subject is notable.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  01:47, 21 December 2009 (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.