Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raleigh Hotel (Washington D.C.)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Raleigh Hotel (Washington D.C.)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is about a non-notable no longer existing building. All information is already on the page for the address (1111 Pennsylvania Avenue), where it discusses the building. All this article does is go over the history of the site that is already on the main article page, instead of talking about the hotel itself, and then refer you right back to the page on the site/current building. Caffeyw (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Raleigh Hotel was extermely notable and notability doesn't expire. Even if all the content was contained in the 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue article, a redirect would be appropriate. No need for deletion. It looks to me like all the content is not entirely overlapping? Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability isn't temporary and passes WP:GEOFEAT (basically WP:GNG) as far as I can tell. Ansh666 02:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There are plenty of sources discussing this building, and notability doesn't vanish when a building is demolished. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep . An historically important  building  and well  documented. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very notable hotel easily passing our guidelines. Hyperlink (although not required) to one of the book sources found within seconds.  The nom doesn't explain why it's "non-notable" nor how do the sources establishing passing WP:GNG somehow do not establish it.  And what's with this "No longer existing" rationale?  I dare the nom to AfD the Colossus of Rhodes with the same "no longer existing" explanation.--Oakshade (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2013 (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.