Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Caribe Resort


 * 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 delete. Sourcing is minimal and lacks depth, as is argued convincingly. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Grand Caribe Resort

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. I could not find any significant coverage. Note there is a similarly named Gran Caribe Resort in Cancun. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Belize is *not* Mexico. Never has been. 2 different resorts some 580km apart have nada to do with each other. Belize is a small, 36-year-old country and requires research in local sources. Like other CARICOM countries, its news outlets rarely come up in a google search. This shows that the Grand Caribe Resort ranked 25th in the world on Trip Advisor's 2012 list. This, this  and this  show it is a resort used for regional meetings/conferences. This  shows it is involved in the community. This   and this  describe amenities and special features of the resort. This  shows that in 2016 the resort was rated #13 of the 25 best hotels in Central America by Trip Advisor. While the amount of coverage might not be significant from a US or UK perspective, for a developing nation, the hotel has received a significant amount of coverage in the national news. SusunW (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for your commment. tripadvisor rankings do not count to establishing notability, nor would I say participating in a beach clean up . all this source confirms was that the resort held the event and nothing about the resort beyond that mention. LibStar (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * also this looks like a travel guide listing. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I never said it was Mexico nor the same resort, just that similarly named hits come up. LibStar (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * the coverage is all run of the mill. LibStar (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, per User:SusunW's analysis, thanks for doing that! Note, the deletion nominator has not notified the article creator of this AFD.  Their not doing so in other AFDs has been commented upon by others, and I also think they should.  This article was PRODed and notice was given to the article creator, but that was by another editor back in 2010. -- do  ncr  am  15:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * there is no requirement to notify article creators, so you can keeping saying that to the cows come home. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a courtesy and I find it rude. SL93 (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 17:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to San Pedro Town. This seems to be an entity that is particularly notable within its locality, but not in the world as a whole. Merging would enable the sliver of information to be discovered by someone wanting to know about the area as a whole, or someone searching for the exact phrase. bd2412  T 20:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sources offered at this AfD are local (WP:AUD) or do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Content is currently strictly WP:PROMO, as in "Hs two pools! Salt water is gentler on the skin!" Etc.
 * Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Failing that, redirect to San Pedro Town -- there's nothing to merge as the article does not offer any independent sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Advertising, and suitable for G11, tho Ido not want to do it once it is already here. I always notify people if I take their article is at AFD -- so does almost everyone else, and so does the default in Twinkle. It is necessary to go out of one's way to not do so--either changing the default or doing it manually. (People sometimes did omit it  in the early years before we had twinkle & it was an additional manual step; it's different now.) If one brings this here one presumably wants the article deleted. Not notifying the contributor is something which tends to give people a reason to comment adversely on the deletion, because it looks unfair. It's the opposite of helpful.   Just as important, the contributor might add enough to fix it--sometimes they do do when it is brought here, but bringing it here is the only way to sufficiently get their attention.   Sometimes other people fix it; bringing it here is the effectually practical way to get it noticed.  I think we all want articles fixed instead of deleted. Notifying is the way to do it. If it doesn't get fixed then, it's a good sign that it never would be.  DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 22 April 2017 (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.