Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scarlet Singapore


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The Scarlet Singapore

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, inclusion in the Conde Nast list is not sufficient to establish notability. Most coverage of this term refers to an unrelated business in the UK. Coverage of the business in this article is not significant and is limited to passing mentions and press releases. Ibadibam (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just come across this when browsing articles for deletion and I was initially in agreement to delete it.. but then I got sentimental and now want to rescue it! I hope I can save it in the next couple of hours.. wish me luck! ツStacey (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I do it? Did I do it? Is it now saved?! ツStacey (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  sst ✈  10:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  sst ✈  10:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  sst ✈  10:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep for now perhaps as the current sourcing compared to before here suggests there may be at least some better sourcing. Would you care to give any helpful comments here? (especially considering the second relist)  SwisterTwister   talk  22:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG:, , , , . North America1000 03:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems clear that there are sufficient references for notability, There often are for luxury hotels. (Some such articles are basically advertising, but this seems to be descriptive.)  DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 6 January 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.