Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridpath Hotel


 * 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. (NAC) ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 18:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ridpath Hotel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Loads of souces about the proposed redevelopment but not about the hotel itself. Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind  talk  00:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 21.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  00:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(is this where I talk??)I don't know what is up but this is a real building complex and was a large part of Spokane's history and is of relevence to Spokane's future. As a cab driver from 1990 to 2004 I was around The Ridpath on a daily basis. will try to edit to appease whoever is upset.
 * Do you have sources about the hotel itself? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Really? Without even looking past the sources in the article, this building clearly meets GNG. are all substantial, independent coverage. Saying these articles are only "about" the proposed redevelopment is misleading; there is plenty of coverage of the hotel's history as well as the current situation and the redevelopment plans. Keep in mind that per WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Camerafiend (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage is also more then just getting articles in the local newspaper. And the article still fails WP:GNG, as fails to make clear why the hotel is notable. It is not exceptionally big, nor high, nor old. And the whole section about the redevelopment, is plain WP:CRYSTAL. Night of the Big Wind  talk  14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Camerafiend and the sources available demonstrating very significant coverage. Agree the nom's comments are misleading.--Oakshade (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha, the classic trick. If you don't have proper arguments, just attack the messenger. Night of the Big Wind  talk  14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B  music  ian  03:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per available sources that quite easily establish notability. ~dee  ( talk? ) 13:52, 28 March 2012 (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.