Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gran Meliá Ghoo


 * 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 no consensus. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 11:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Gran Meliá Ghoo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not existing property with a clearly promotional tone of the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as there's nothing suggesting a better notable and improvable article, still questionable. SwisterTwister   talk  06:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – How does the article have a "clearly promotional tone". As written at the time it was nominated here (diff), it is quite neutrally worded, and has no promotional context or tone, peacock language, language extolling its virtues or how great it is, etc. It reads as an entirely neutrally-worded article that simply summarizes the topic. Regarding the notion of "non existing property" in the nomination, this is not a valid rationale for deletion; notable construction developments are allowed to be covered in the encyclopedia. See also: WP:DEFUNCTS. North America1000 20:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, albeit on a weak basis, from sources that I was able to find online:, , , It's likely that additional reliable sources are available in Iranian news media sources, which may not be readily available or easy to access in some western and other countries. Per this, also keep in the interests of countering systemic bias on Wikipedia (See Availability of sources may cause bias). North America1000 20:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Not existing property". The property does exist, please see this photo. The shopping mall section is open to the public, and the hotel opens in 2017.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames  ( talk   contribs ) 08:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Notable for a number of reasons and already with some independent sources. And I agree with the above comment that it does not have an overly-promotional tone. There are only going to be more sources for this in the future. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. as promotional and as TOOSOON. It may possibly  be notable when actually built, but there isn o way to determine that at this time.  DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  13:42, 21 April 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.