Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotel design


 * 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  06:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hotel design

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing but an essay. There may be a thing here, but this isn't it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is the above !vote based upon a search for sources regarding the actual topic? Northamerica1000(talk) 10:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It is our policy to improve articles about such a notable topic, not to delete them. Warden (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And what makes it notable, besides you saying that it is? How do you know this can be improved? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * , Colonel Warden found a book by a Cornell University professor on the subject of hotel design. Uncle G (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 07:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep - For starters, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable book sources (tertiary sources):
 * Ultimate Hotel Design
 * ''Hotel Design, Planning and Development
 * New Hotel Design
 * Hotel Design
 * Stylish Hotel Design
 * Contemporary Hotel Design
 * Hotel Planning and Design
 * Hotel Design
 * Hotel Design
 * Hotel Revolution
 * ...and the list goes on and on! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia comprised of notable topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've begun working on improving the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I applaud the efforts that have been made to clean up this article, but it remains a personal essay full of unreferenced non-trivial assertions. Indeed, the only in-article reference is for the bleeding obvious: "Hotel design is the design of hotels", whereas comments such as "Hotels are usually designed from the inside out to ensure the practical working and relationship of the parts in the most economical manner" are totally unsupported, and comments such as "hotels still commonly function to provide a welcome environment that supports the comfort of its guests, the provision or respite, rest and relaxation from the demands of a noisy and increasingly crowded society" are just fluff. As it stands, everything but the first sentence should be removed, and then the article would be speedily deleted (Criteria_for_speedy_deletion). The notability of the subject was never cited in the deletion rationale; what was cited was its failure to meet the policy WP:NOT. The fact that the article still fails this over six years since creation and despite the work now of Warden and Northamerica1000 reinforces my view that it is unsalvagable. It should be deleted and restarted from scratch. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed the content which I placed in the image captions. In any case, CSD#A3 states "However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. ".  Warden (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding User:RichardOSmith's comment above, see the section of Wikipedia's editing policy Try to fix problems. This article is easily salvageable, in my opinion. It just needs more work. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - More copy editing and the addition of significant inline citations has been undertaken in the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly you've done enough to the article now to rescue it from deletion. I'm still very much convinced it would have been better to start over, but thank you for taking care of it. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has been improved enough to meet all WP standards. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:07, 22 May 2012 (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.