Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neemrana Hotels


 * 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   speedy keep, doesn't look like an advertisement anymore :) No delete votes standing. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Neemrana Hotels

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * It looks like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themaxviwe (talk • contribs)


 * Keep, or rather Close AfD as improper nomination. The whole process that this article has undergone is absurd. This was an article created less than two hours ago by a new user and tagged for CSD within two minutes, which I just accidentally happened to notice when looking at Special:NewPages. I removed the db-spam tag believing it could be improved — which the tag explicitly allows — and the tag was re-added by User:Themaxviwe. I removed it again, and the tag got added twice more. After that, very soon, this AfD has been started. It does not appear the nominator has done any of the steps of WP:BEFORE, such as checking for notability, etc. (It does seem to be notable.) And "looks like an advertisement" is not grounds for deletion, since #10 of WP:BEFORE explicitly says "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." I'm extremely dismayed by the way speedy deletion seems to work here, with new users being scared away without being given time to fix their mistakes, and articles that quite probably can be fixed being relentlessly hounded by careless editors. Shreevatsa (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add my main argument amidst my indignation. :-) A simple Google News Archive search reveals there are several full-length articles in newspapers and the link (including leading publications like The Hindu and India Today). Shreevatsa (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The history of that article is a disgrace. The amount of newbie-biting that went on is excessive and there are clearly editors who need to receive warnings to be more patient with new users.  However, we can't leave this material in place regardless of the conduct issues.  Closer should please consider who needs to be warned and then delete.  Struck delete recommendation owing to substantial improvement. — S Marshall  T/C 09:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep a notable and interesting organization, the article is referenced with multiple reliable third party sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to massive cleanup and sourcing by User:Shreevatsa. Hqb (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep dito Hqb. Thanks User:Shreevatsa. --Triwbe (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- Triwbe (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced article; thanks to Shreevatsa's effort. Salih  ( talk ) 13:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. piling on. good work shreevatsa--Sodabottle (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears very notable to me. Article is referenced and there appear to plenty more independent and reliable sources available.  Although original article wasn't perfect (we can't expect newbies to get everything right first time), it appears to be shaping up well.  The work the organisation has done also appears very interesting - and as an organisation specialising in bringing historic buildings back into use, possible somewhat unique. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2010 (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.