Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Exeter Inn


 * 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. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The Exeter Inn

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article does not establish the reason for notability. Claims it is "historic" with no further explanation. Reads mostly like advertisement. Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep primarily because it is mentioned in a few hundred travel books. As to the extend of the coverage, it might not be deep, but it is rather broad.  As for claim of notability, it does say it is "historic", which is vague but enough alone to escape wp:speedy.   Dennis Brown (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, the Inn has received significant coverage in newspapers and features prominently in any travel guide of the region. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Is mention of a commercial establishment in travel guides of and by itself really enough to establish notability? That seems awfully low of a bar to set.Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment You are correct that being mentioned in dozens of travel guides would be too low a bar, but this Inn has received much more attention than that. I am assuming there is more coverage that we just can't find in the quick searches we do here, based on the type of sourcing I did find.  Yes, an assumption, but an experienced assumption.  Places that are several generations older than the internet often have at least a few articles that are simply not accessible with a web browser, as I'm sure you know, so I would rather keep it on the very very slim chance I'm wrong than delete what is much more likely to be an article on a notable place.  The key is my reading of wp:v as being "verifiable" (able) not "verified".  To delete based on our own inability to verify would seem to be counter to the intent of the guidelines, IF we can (in good faith) conclude that the sources exist but they are simply not low hanging fruit.  Dennis Brown (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer the nom's objection, I do think that simply being mentioned in a travel guide is insufficient–but I see three separate reliable sources here that are not travel guides or routine restaurant reviews, two newspapers and a book. I think that satisfies WP:ORG. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete To answer Wkharrisjr, I think that we should have coverage in several reliable sources that is much more in-depth than the usual listing of a "nice place to stay" in a travel book. For example, coverage that discusses the history or architectural features of the inn in detail far beyond the normal travel listing.  So far, I don't see that type of coverage for this inn, but am open to changing my opinion if such good references are provided. Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of coverage in numerous sources. Our editing policy is to keep such material. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't editing policy refer to content within articles themselves and not with whether the article should exist at all?Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * CW often uses this argument about editing policy and I have to say I also disagree with his interpretation of WP:PRESERVE. BigDom (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2011 (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.