Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Gregory 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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [spill the beans] || 23:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

St. Gregory Hotel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:Run-of-the-mill guideline says "bare mention[s]" run afoul of run-of-the mill, and the text should establish "something unusual about the subject or something that may be encyclopedic". Building notability at WP:NBUILD requires "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The term "significant coverage" is defined in WP:GNG as "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Additionally, WP:GNG requires reliable, independent, secondary sources. If reliable, independent, non-trivial secondary sources are provided, notability is presumed. The article contains a number of non-trivial, reliable, independent secondary sources. Three of the sources are in-depth discussions of the hotel in question, the others are non-trivial discussions in larger workers. The text of the article clearly establishes "something unusual about the subject" (former use of the building, former federal government occupants, statue). - Tim1965 (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [express] ||  19:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm confused. If this article is about a company/organization then the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. By that guideline. the references fail and I would !vote to Delete. If the article is being evaluated by the standards of other guidelines which are less strict, it may very well pass but someone else with more knowledge than me might be better positioned to provide their opinion on that.  HighKing++ 12:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of being notable. One of 38 it is entirity. Are we going to have all these hotels in the Hersha Hospitality Trust company on here, in directly like structure. Fails WP:NCORP.   scope_creep Talk  17:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I think it just about gets to GNG with the Washington Business Journal articles. Frommer's don't count towards sourcing. Could someone do a Washington Post search? Whether it has been covered there is probably key. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The ownership change is also covered by Business Wire and Metro Weekly, while the Washington Post has a review of the Tredici Enoteca restaurant. GNG is well covered.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the Washington Business Journal article is a routine announcement of a business sale and fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. It is a business.  scope_creep Talk  08:30, 27 November 2020 (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.