Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Thompson House


 * 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. No evidence of notability has been established, at this time. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Thompson House

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. A Google search (admittedly minimal) produces no reliable sources, just the official site for the hotel and travel sites. Consequently the article reads as pretty much straight advertising. Other considerations: The article is completely unsourced. The article was tagged as an orphan nearly 5 years ago, and in that time no links have been introduced that change the orphan status. A more abbreviated mention of the hotel has already been included at Wikivoyage. &mdash; Ipoellet (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me   What did he do now?  02:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * delete Just don't see the notability. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Admittedly, this is a borderline case, but this is an historic resort hotel going back to the 19th century, plus the words in the name are very common, making a search for relevant sources difficult. Adding the town where it is located (Windham) to the search helps separate the wheat from the chaff, and yields some good sources. Admittedly, some are travel guides, but I think that there is enough to establish notability for an encyclopedia with 4.4 million articles. I welcome other assessments, pro and con.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. I looked and all I can find is directory type listings. All I can find is a mention here. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2014 (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.