Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyatt Regency Birmingham (2nd nomination)


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hyatt Regency Birmingham
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Building with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Judge for yourself: "The Hyatt Regency Birmingham is a hotel in the city centre of Birmingham, England. It stands at a height of 75 metres 24 floors and has 319 guest rooms. The hotel has a blue glass exterior facade."  At 24 floors, this wouldn't even be a pinky finger in Birmingham skyline.  I'm sorry, but we don't have a project to write an article for every 20+ story building in the world.  Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to International Convention Centre, Birmingham. There is more now than there was when the article started, but I don't see that it's notable beyond its proximity to the centre. In all fairness, the article now points out that the hotel security (including below ground access between the hotel and the ICC) was a factor in the 1998 G8 summit taking place in Birmingham; that would be an argument in favor of notability enough for an article about the hotel.  However, I don't favor keeping a separate article. Mandsford (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

*Delete since the article does nothing to establish the subject's notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete Keep. Deleted as not notable after an AFD in 2007. The article certainly does nothing to address the notability issue, or even to claim notability, and nothing jumps out as evidence of notability from Google/Google News searches...--Michig (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Try books. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ...but Google Books brings back one good source (Smyth), which is sufficient to keep.--Michig (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per previous AFD -- specifically, there's nothing particularly notable about the building. No real mention in 3-rd party sources.  tempo di valse  [☎]  14:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC) changed to Keep . My bad, didn't look well enough. Google Books comes up with quite a few relevant hits, found lots of mentions in reliabe, third party sources.  tempo di valse '''  [☎]  23:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is. Where did you look? Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a criterion for deletion under Deletion policy. We determine whether subjects are notable at AFD.  Establishing notability is merely a forumla for ensuring that articles, about certain specific classes of subjects (which do not include hotels) are not permitted to be speedily deleted. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I hadn't checked properly for sources on Google Books. And a Google Books search suggests that it is notable. It even gets mentioned in a Ben Elton novel. So keep. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Coverage in third-party sources appears to be trivial. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The whole of chapter 10 of Smyth (q.v.) is devoted to it, for example.  What sources did you look at? Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's now a few more sources than when I last checked, and now notability is more of a borderline case. I'm still not convinced there's scope for a meaningful article beyond a stub here, but I can't think of a suitable article to merge this to. I'm changing to Neutral for now, with scope for keep if coverage out of very local or very specialised sources can be found. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources have to be reliable. Their subject specialization is irrelevant (otherwise there are a lot of subjects, from physics topics through automobiles to railway stations, that we wouldn't be covering).  It's their reliability that counts. Uncle G (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I will add that whilst it is considered courteous for participants in an AfD discussion to look for primary sources, the onus is on the article creator to make a case for notability (especially if the article is re-created after an AfD on grounds of notability). Any attempt by other editors to establish notability for an article I consider a favour and not a right. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you aren't putting Deletion policy into practice. The onus is on all of us to look for sources, and doing more than just reading the article itself.  This has been in our verifiability and deletion policies since they were first written.  We need multiple slices of Swiss Cheese at AFD.  And that means everyone, independently, looking for sources, double-checking one another. This isn't a matter of courtesy, or a matter of other editors condescending to look for sources as some sort of favour to an article's creator.  (Regarding helping to improve articles created by other people as a some kind of favour to other editors is rather missing the point of this being a collaboratively-written encyclopaedia, and is based upon an erroneous assumption that creators own articles.)  This is a matter of ensuring that we come to the correct result so that the encyclopaedia gets better and deletion policy is followed, given that (quite obviously) no one editor has access to the entire corpus of human knowledge, or indeed to every source in the world.  Looking for sources is not Somebody Else's Problem.  The proper study of encyclopaedists is the finding, reading, evaluating, and using of sources.  We are all included in the "finding" part.  Uncle G (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The closest thing I can find to the policy you are claiming exists is for the nominator to make a good faith attempt to check that sources aren't likely to exist. It is very unusual for an article to get zero coverage in Google and GNews but be saved by a book found in a Gbooks search, so nominating an article for deletion after searches in Google and GNews seems a perfectly reasonable nomination, especially if a prod tag asking for sources of notability is removed without any attempt to discuss the issue. If an article is deleted because no-one found an obscure source, anyone can repost the article later with the better sources. But with gazillions of articles going to AfD every day, and most participants having their own articles to contribute to, you cannot reasonably expect people who pick delete to make extensive searches for sources every time. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Clearly been vastly improved since nomination. Thanks Uncle G. Looking at this AfD, looks like a keep is imminent; now it's just a formality. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep The Hyatt Regency Birmingham article has already been deleted once and has been recreated. More information about the hotel has been posted on this page and it should not be deleted a second time. 206.255.176.234 (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: I added a reference to emporis.com where it said citaion needed. Why was such a basic piece of info (the height) not already footnoted????? Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:00, 13 April 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.