Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotel San Miguel


 * 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. I'm not sure why this was even relisted, keeps had no policy based comments. Secret account 06:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hotel San Miguel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced, for 2.5 years, no assertion of notability, wasn't able to find in-depth, reliable coverage, WP:NOTTRAVEL. WikiTravel Wikivoyage, on the other hand, is over thataway..... j⚛e deckertalk 06:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete A Gsearch gives next to no relevant hits, thus appears to be a candidate to be migrated to Wikivoyage, if it's to be kept anywhere at all in Wikispace..  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 06:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for removal.Lihaas (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Migrating Hotel articles to Wikivoyage is a sure way to send any article into obscurity at this present time. I think this article should still be given time to mature and research may prove that the establishment may very well have notability. I do agree that the article needs to be referenced and needs expanding but to delete would be a backward step.  stavros1  ♣  12:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I can see from the History that ten different editors have made contributions to this article. It should be kept and allowed to develop further. At the moment there are very few Hotel Articles about Ibiza. As for notability? This has not been established either way.Cheeseladder (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This page still needs time to grow. I agree with stavros1 that at this time Wikivoyage is a waste of space and difficult to navigate around, even when you know what you are looking forDemax (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * KeepOne reason that would make a hotel notable here is that it is on the holiday island of Ibiza. An island that’s main notoriety is contrived from its beaches, hotels and hostels landscape and people. The one notion of notability implicates the other. The hotel would be nothing without the Island and the island would not be so notable without its hotel accommodation.Beechgrove (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply to the keep !voters, or !voter, as the case may be: WP:NRVE says: The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.  --j⚛e deckertalk 19:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply As pointed out by j⚛e decker, in the guidelines WP:NRVE this article's subject Hotel San Miguel may well be notable if sources exist even if they have not been named yet. However. The actual proof has yet to be established. And as this guidance goes on to say, If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for this hotel, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. This article should be given more time to mature, deleting it should be disscussed at a much later stage.  stavros1  ♣  12:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Later stage? The article has existed since 2010.  --j⚛e deckertalk 08:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, your citation to the Rough Guide appears to be incorrect.  As near as I can tell, the name of the Hotel does not appear in that book.  Perhaps you meant another book? --j⚛e deckertalk 09:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read page 126 the guide goes onto say Port de Sant Miquel’s beauty is tainted considerably by the portentous presence of two large and ugly concrete hotel blocks insensitively built into the eastern cliff. This is the Hotel San Miquel and its ugly sister’s. Not a very nice reference, but none the less a reference to this Hotel.
 * I assume in good faith that that is true, but it is not, verifiable from the text, which never mentions the name of the hotel. In addition to "not being very nice" (which doesn't really concern us here), it's also not "significant coverage" as that term is used in this guideline regarding notability on Wikipedia. j⚛e deckertalk 15:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Having been to this part of the island I personally think that this particular hotel complex is a carbuncle on the face of this beautiful cove, and I would happily see it demolished and returned the place to its natural beauty. Unfortunately Generalissimo Franco insisted on scaring this island with many hotels like this. The reason I think it is important to keep this article on Wikipedia is to, maybe act as a warning to future developers and to stand in the islands history of the way the Nationalist government saw tourism in southern Spain as a quick fix answer to its financial crises after the civil war. I don’t really have any interest in this hotel as a hotel but I think the fact that it is there at all needs to be recorded rather than sweeping it under a rather large Ibizan carpet (i.e. Delete). I realise that the reference in rough guide doesn’t actually name the hotel but I would imagine that is probably for liable reasons. Nevertheless it is a reference to the hotel.  stavros1  ♣  14:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, nor is it a place for advocacy. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply to the Above And this Page is not an article on the encyclopaedia only a discussion about the subject, of which we all have the right of reply!!! Here it is important to keep in mind that the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes.   stavros1  ♣  14:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete No sources provided to show the notability of this hotel. The two sources provided are a tourist guide and a map. If you want to say something about the island, put in that article. Or about Franco and Fascism in those articles. Borock (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence WP:N or WP:ORG are satisfied. Wikipedia is not a directory of every hotel. The fact that it is on Ibeza does not justify an article, since notability is not inherited. A possible passing reference in a tourist guide, which does not even mention it by name, is unconvincing. Claims that it might someday acquire proof of notability are unconvincing when the article has been here since 2010. The fact that several editors contributed to the article in no way demonstrates notability. Edison (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is poorly sourced, with little if any claim to notability for the subject, and I have not been able to find better sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge. This hotel article could be included in the article Port de Sant Miguel as it is the largest hotel in this resort. In could be added under a sub-title of Hotels and accommodation in the resort. Haydnaston (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni↑talk↓ </b> 16:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />


 * 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.