Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shangri-La Mactan Island Resort & Spa, Cebu


 * 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 no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 19:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Shangri-La Mactan Island Resort & Spa, Cebu
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

In violation of WP:NOT, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. Russavia 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Being "the Philippines' largest and most exclusive deluxe resort" is most certainly an assertaion of notability, not to mention something that makes the topic notable. It's clear the nom is simply pasting the same sentence into every AfD in their hotel AfD spree without even reading the articles. --Oakshade 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is widely written on WP that Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted. This article, as well as EVERY article I have nominated do NOT cite multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources to establish notability, and hence, based upon those reasons alone, every AfD I have instigated is within warranted and within guidelines. And I stand by my nomination for this article. --Russavia 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Furthermore, the claim of notability of being the largest, is all well and good, I can claim that pigs can fly, but that doesn't make it true. And as per the article, its claim of being the largest is also hogwash, particular given this --Russavia 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Response - The reliable source The Philippine Star says it is. That Waterfront Cabu City press release you cited doesn't even counter this article's (now referenced) claim. (You're not working for the Waterfront Cabu City Hotel & Casino, correct?)  The claim was verifiable, but instead of tagging the article for a request for references from editors which would've been the responsible thing to do, you just went ahead and tried to delete it.  Sorry, you don't own articles.  --Oakshade 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentAnd this reliable source proves that your source is wrong (and out of date by some 6 years by the looks of it). And I know I don't own the articles, but it is ultimately the responsibility of editors to source their material, and it is made clear that unsourced material can be disputed and removed at any stage. But the way that these Shangri-La articles have been presented, they all come across as spam, so open it up to discussion. By the way, I think we need to remove the Philippine Star from reliable sources? ;) --Russavia 22:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note to closing administrator. When the article was improved by an added reliable source being provided, the nominator deleted the referenced material and its reliable source,  a very bad faith effort.  For the benefit of editors, here is the referenced content...
 * Shangri-La's Mactan Island Resort & Spa is a resort hotel owned by Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts located at the island of Mactan, Cebu. It is the Philippines' largest and most exclusive deluxe resort, equipped with 546 guest rooms & suites.
 * Editors and the closing admin can make up their own mind from this information. --Oakshade 22:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal Cmon Oakshade, I added disputed tags to the article, which you then referenced and removed my dispute tags, but due to links provided here (where I notice you have yet to comment on) I removed the referenced assertion in the article based upon 2 sources stating that the hotel referenced in the talk page is in fact larger, which negates any sense of 'notability' a hotel may have from being 'large'. You reverted this, to which I have re-added dispute tags, which you AGAIN removed. If you cared to refer to the talk page, as the tag says, you wouldn't need to post the above. --Russavia 23:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Further rebuttal, I also take offence at your claim of 'bad faith' edit, when in fact, the claim you put in the article was removed with a link in the talk page to anyother source affirming the 'largest' to the Waterfront Cebu. If anything, the edit was fully within zee rules, this is a case of you simply refusing to refer to the talk page. --Russavia 23:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Refer to this edit Oakshade which was made a minute before I removed your content. I will be waiting for an apology from yourself. --Russavia 23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The first link on that talk page post is to a press release - if you think a press release is a reliable source, you need to brush up on Reliable sources.- The 2nd is simply an introduction to a news organization. --Oakshade 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would care to look at the edit made a couple of min after the correct link was provided. And this was before my last edit on the article (with a notation to refer to the talk page and before you posted what you did here. --Russavia 01:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would care to look at the edit made a couple of min after the correct link was provided. And this was before my last edit on the article (with a notation to refer to the talk page and before you posted what you did here. --Russavia 01:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, president shows up to the opening = notable. Kappa
 * Delete "Not Notable" means "Fails to demonstrate how it meets WP:N - which in this instance means "does not include two independent references to reliable sources". Only reference is a press release. I think if there was more to be found then Russavia would have by now.Garrie 21:52, 1 August 2007 (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.