Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kittitian Hill


 * 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) Esquivalience t 00:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Kittitian Hill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to meet notability requirements and is purely advertising Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep advertising content can be toned down by editing, but the argument here should be about the topic, which seems to be notable to me. There are quite a few published pages on the topic, they do seem to be independently rewritten at least and not just press releases. so WP:GNG is satisfied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - article may be vaguely promotional, but certainly is not "purely advertising". Tone problems can be solved via editing and the subject is clearly notable sourcing based on extrensive reviews such as  &  and the many reliable sources in the article.  Pinging  who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (yarn)  @ 20:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to be enough coverage to meet notability requirements, including three non-trivial mentions in the NYTimes. The slightly effusive tone of the article not a valid reason for deletion. The Blue Canoe  03:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It has a pretty good reference/content ratio and there is coverage in independent sources. There are a few sentences that read a little promotional and could be toned down. Gigs (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2015 (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.