Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Abbey Resort


 * 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The Abbey Resort

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article appears on its face to fail WP:GNG. It looks to be a WP:COOKIE resort. Dolotta (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes GNG long as I found some RSes in here. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 07:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. The only attempt at a notability claim ("Abbey has the world's tallest wooden A-frame") is uncited. Copy is promotional including news on the "$40M renovation" and the footage of its meeting place. Wikipedia is not a planning guide for corporate meeting planners. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Offers virtually nothing of historical or architectural interest, one link doesn't work, the other is to its own webpage. Nothing but an ad.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. Pearson (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:CORP. It's a hotel/resort and has the usual ads, listings etc that you would expect from a hotel/resort, but nothing better. The one source cited aside from the official website is a dead link which is hosted by some hotel consultancy service, so I expect it isn't third party. The best source I found was this review of their restaurant, but as it was published in a local paper I don't think it meets WP:AUD.  Hut 8.5  14:07, 5 November 2016 (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.