Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Swan Hotel, Alnwick


 * 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. As long as the building is being discussed, it is fine and WP:ORG does not apply. The article itself may need a bit of cleanup, but it is on a notable subject. (non-admin closure) Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The White Swan Hotel, Alnwick

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I submit that there is nothing of substantial interest and that the entry is merely acting as an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.whitby (talk • contribs) 11:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly keep. Hotel is world wide known per its RMS Olympic First Class Lounge Dining Suite, and other parts of importrant historic ship. Per that it is highly relevant, and notable. -- WhiteWriter speaks 13:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And in the light of this new findings about listed building, keep is even stronger. -- WhiteWriter speaks 10:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete : Fails notability as per WP:ORG. The only notable point is that the dinning suite is fitted from RMS Olympic, which is attributed by its website (ie WP:PRIMARY) and the other source is by "Phil's Web Page" (ie WP:SELFPUBLISH). Neither of which passes "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". If an editor feels strongly about the importance of that piece of information then I was going to sugesst that it be merged into the main article of RMS Olympic, then only to discover that it's already listed in more detail but missing a reference. Therefore I see no reason to keep this article, which might also be considered a WP:CONTENTFORK. --Michaela den (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to RMS Olympic. The fact that this hotel used some of the fittings of a notable ship did get some attention in third-party coverage, but the hotel doesn't seem to be notable for anything else. This bit of trivia is worth mentioning, but it's already in the RMS Olympic page and there's not enough coverage about the hotel itself to justify a separate article (unless someone finds some coverage I didn't). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Grade II listed building. While Grade II listing is not necessarily an automatic qualification for Wikipedia, it is a significant contributing factor to notability and the listing does confirm the notability of the "remarkable" Olympic Room, which would appear to at least partially be the reason for its being listed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Listed building + remarkable (part) interior gives sufficient notability to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Alnwick. It still fails notability as per WP:ORG for primary criteria states that "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization", having failed notability and as the article stands now it is not "a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization". However I do agree that the Grade II listing and its' Olympic Dining Suite are worthy of note. Therefore a redirect/merge to Alnwick would make more sense then redirect to RMS Olympic, as the hotel is listed already and the info can be incorporated without much effort. I mean the hotel is in the village and the Olympic fittings are in the hotel, not the other way round. Anyway if other reliable sources are found it can be reverted.--Michaela den (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an organisation, but a building! Hence WP:ORG, which is in any case a guideline and not a set-in-stone policy, does not in any way apply. The only guideline that does is WP:N. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment:A hotel is a commercial organization. As the article stood then it did not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:N. Anyway my point is that it needed more references and now it has, which is good. I think closing admins are sensible enough to see that with the new refs my arguments does not apply anymore. I guess sometimes it takes an AfD to get an article up to wiki standard.--Michaela den (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is about the building, not whatever company runs it. WP:ORG therefore does not apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Given that it's a listed building and has received reliable source coverage, I think notability has been satisfied here. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:03, 10 June 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.