Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Refnes


 * 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. The article has been renamed Refsnes Gods. JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Refnes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article is about a non-notable hotel in Norway. (The article's title is actually spellt wrong - it should read Refsnes - with an extra "s".) I can't find any sources that support the notability of the hotel or the building itself. Online hits are almost all either advertising for the hotel or trivial (blogs, etc). Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C T J F 8 3  GoUSA 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - hmmm, not sure about notability of hotels, but there's an entry for the hotel here (with the alt. spelling of Refsnes Gods which actually seems to be the more common) which calls it "the most elegant resort in the environs of Oslo", and it also appears that the hotel is sometimes used for international conferences. (see google books link here. So assuming hotels are notable if they get mentioned in travel guides, I guess this one might be notable. Gatoclass (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Changing my !vote to Keep. Given that the hotel dates to 1767, I think it would be notable just as an historic building alone. Gatoclass (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per User: Gatoclass. Frommer's, presumably a reliable source, says that it is "the most elegant resort in the environs of Oslo." That by itself should satisfy any notability concerns. -- Pink Bull  00:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I moved the article to the more appropriate name, per the above discussion. -- Pink Bull  00:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to its historic values, it's a notable private art gallery. Three of its Munch holdings were stolen in 2005. Both are now noted in the article and cited to independent sources. Novickas (talk) 16:53, 4 March 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.