Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waldorf Astoria Berlin


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Waldorf Astoria Berlin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Claim of notability does not seem credible, and the article was created by a seemingly connected author, and seems like an advert. Prod removed by author, so moving on to AfD. Benboy00 (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge into Zoofenster, the building that in large part consists of the hotel. de:Zoofenster contains information on the planning and construction history of the building and also a bit on the hotel, including this usable reference. There is no compelling reason for a separate article, but the hotel name is a plausible search term. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. There aren't that many five-star hotels in the world and we do usually have articles on them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, actually there are quite a lot of hotels. This page from 2010 says that there are 2200 rated by this organisation alone. Considering that the number of hotels they rate as 5 star increases every year, and this is only one of several rating organisations, it seems unlikely that we do have articles on more than 50% of them. That said, we should probably be following notability guidelines (WP:NOTE), rather than pointing at other pages (WP:OSE). This hotel does not seem notable on its own because it does not have significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. I think Yngvadottir has a good point, as the hotel is a large part of the building. Benboy00 (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if there are 2,200 five-star hotels in the world (and since at least two of the hotels on that website's front page are actually four-star I take leave to doubt it's a terribly reliable source - it seems to be a commercial and promotional organisation as opposed to a neutral star-assigning organisation), that's only a very tiny proportion of the total hotels in the world, and since Wikipedia is growing all the time the fact that we don't yet have articles on all of them means nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is why I pointed to WP:OSE. Also, The fact that there is no single accepted worldwide star rating for hotels hinders any star based argument. Which is why I think we should use notability guidelines (like I said). Benboy00 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OSE is only relevant if there isn't a good reason to keep an article except for OSE. In this case, I don't believe that is true. I happen to believe that five-star hotels are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Believing something is inherently notable doesn't make it so. Do you have any policy based reasoning behind your belief? Benboy00 (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How many times does it need to be pointed out to overly rules-bound editors that afds are discussion forums and are not governed by bureaucracy? Opinions do count here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just saying "thats my opinion" is not useful. AFD's should not (and indeed, are not) based on opinion, they are based on discussion, which is normally based around guidelines and policies. You have to argue "why" you feel that five star hotels are inherently notable, otherwise its not a discussion, its just a shouting match. So far, your argument seems to have been "there arent many of them and wikipedia is growing all the time" and then you just basically said "I dont care what wikipedia says, i think they are always notable". Benboy00 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look at my userpage before you try to tell me how Wikipedia works. I've been here a long time and I've contributed to thousands of afd discussions. I know how it works. You do know that we are Wikipedia don't you? We make Wikipedia. It doesn't make itself. So saying I don't care what "Wikipedia" says is frankly a pretty stupid comment. We decide what is notable and what isn't. We do that through discussion on various fora, one of which is afd. I've given my opinion. End of story. It's up to the closer now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are not a "we" and you are not wikipedia. You are a very small part of wikipedias huge user base, and the fact remains that you haven't actually given any real reasoning against deletion, you have just said "I think x, because that is my opinion". I think ducks are fish because that is my opinion, but that doesn't make it valid. The appeal to authority that you seem to be going for is not valid. Benboy00 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep.  Based on some searching, I think this passes GNG; I added a couple of sources (from CNN and The Scotsman).--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:20, 26 July 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.