Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterContinental Belgrade


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

InterContinental Belgrade
Hotels should be at WikiTravel (see Articles for deletion/Precedents Fram 09:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete notability of the hotel not asserted. -- Koffieyahoo 09:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as as non-notable - the article is a description of the location of the hotel - or transwiki to Wikitravel if something notable about this hotel is added.  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   11:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or transwiki -- per aeropagitica -- MrDolomite 14:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to WikiTravel if anything can be added, otherwise delete. --Coredesat 20:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to Wikitavel. No encyclopaedic value whatsoever. Pascal.Tesson 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag with notability for now I think that I might have been too quick on the gun and doing some more research, there seems to be some hints of this hotel being a notable building in Belgrade and the site of some recent history. I invite the defenders of the article to add some of that info to make it more suitable for WP. Pascal.Tesson 02:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per other delete votes. Transwikiing to Wikitravel is not an option since they have a different license and are not a Wikimedia Foundation project. Anyway, they don't want full articles about individual hotels, just entries for them under the city name.  --Metropolitan90 02:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 5-star hotel in the capital city of a country where there are probably very very few 5-star hotels. The photo shows that it predates the fall of communism so it most likely has an interesting history and role in the city. CalJW 15:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If this article here gets to stay, what is this article missing in order to have a place here? Besides this hotel, the Hyatt Regency Belgrade also has a lot more content than that Japanese hotel, yet more people wish to see it deleted.  -- Krytan   talk  16:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, there are probably a good number of articles for hotels that should be deleted (and I've nominated a few over the last two days), but that does not make a case for the notability of the InterContinental Belgrade. Pascal.Tesson 17:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Hotels are not inherently notable, this one does not make a case for inclsion here. Inner Earth 14:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This seems to be a single hotel, which do not usually merit their own articles (unless this is a chain?). Anyways, the "this was kept so this should be kept" argument is one of my least favorite things to read on AFD and the case he mentions is a year old anyway.  Imo, CalJW's arguments don't really work either - we don't keep articles based on how "interesting" the subject could potentially be.  Also, there have been no sources presented claiming anything, so thusfar this is all original research.  Wickethewok 18:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This hotel does appear to be notable.  The article does need work, but that is not a reason to delete.  And yes, it is part of a chain, so if this article is deleted, a better option may be to merge into the chain article. Vegaswikian 23:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - If its a chain, it really doesn't need its own article. Single hotels usually do not get separate articles if they are a part of chain, except under crazy circumstances of some sort.  Wickethewok 12:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. --JJay 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 23:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Question for the last three Keep-voters: "This hotel does appear to be notable": in what way? I don't think anyone has given a reason to believe that it is notable, yet you all vote "keep" because of its supposed notability. Fram 08:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What gave you that idea? I didn't say anything about "notability". Please define "notable" and explain why a Belgrade hotel should be "notable" to someone who lives in my country. --JJay 10:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which bit of the 'per above' were you referring to then? Inner Earth 10:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The two keep comments that don't use meaningless terms such as "notable". --JJay 11:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I'm totally confused. You (JJay) vote "Keep per above". The "above" is the Keep by Vegaswikian, which uses as its argument to keep that it appears to be notable. If you feel that it is a meaningless term and you feel that I have the need to define notability, then why did you vote like you did? As for the other Keep comments, being a 5star hotel is no reason for inclusion (there are at least four of those in Belgrade, so that's not very unique), and "most likely having an interesting history"... until someone can give us resources on that interesting history, this is idle speculation, and thus not verifiable. As far as I can see, the hotel was built in 1979, closed during the Yugo wars, and will reopen in december 2006 (yes, it isn't even opened now). Fram 12:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, for your confusion. To be perfectly clear, I disagree with you, but agree with CalJW and Krytan. They gave perfectly satisfactory reasons for keeping this article. You have given a few more- i.e. closed during war. What you haven't given is a definition that we can all live with - meaning for people in every country where wikipedia is accessible - for "notability" regarding hotels. --JJay 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In which case I encourage you to participate in the discussion of a proposed notability guidelines for hotels at WP:HOTELS. Pascal.Tesson 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * When it becomes a guideline I'll take it into consideration. When it becomes policy I will abide by it. Until such time, I will continue to view "notability" as a non-existant concept not worth discussing. --JJay 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment In an effort to save the article (which I believe is borderline but, hey, we can give it a try) I have modified the article to remove all content that could be viewed as spam (like convenience of the location) and added a reference to at least one notable incident, the murder of a well-known paramilitary leader in the hotel's lobby. Pascal.Tesson 17:36, 29 June 2006 (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.