Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gstaad Palace

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, too many unsourced statements fail to bring it back from an advertisement --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gstaad Palace

Speedy tag as spam removed twice. This is an advertisement for the hotel. DarkAudit 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any reason that this would be more notable than the motel down the street from me. Well, maybe fewer prostitution raids, but that would seem to make it LESS notable. Slavlin 19:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bury it in the Alpine snow Not many hotels are notable enough to merit an article here--this one doesn't even come close.Blueboy 96 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have no idea about 5 star luxus hotels in europa! this is one of the founders of the leading hotel of the world organisation! and one of the three top resort if you talking about your 2 star USA hotel in Alpine snow ok but dont talk about like this about an 100 year old hotel which is very famous in europe.milehnort 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Luxus hotel. Unrivalled reputation for discreet, refined hospitality. Over 280 employees dedicated to fulfilling your every wish. Herostratus 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New, improved DELETE brand opinion - now with extra flavour! (Advertising, in a big way. If it's rewritten and properly sourced by the end of the AFD, I might look again.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I'm not taking a specific position on the subject of this article, the contents are clearly a bit borderline. However, this place could be as notable as the Waldorf Astoria or even the New Yorker Hotel. So perhaps more of a focus on cleaning up the article to a less advertising-oriented style would be appropriate? FrozenPurpleCube 00:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There have been reports in the press of a company writing Wikipedia articles about hotels when paid by the hotel. This reads just like marketing copy. --Selket ^Talk 06:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite and add reliable sources, please. I have made major change in the article, so please take a look. I removed all spams/advertisement/brochure-like statements. The subject is notable enough due to its history. I found some sources and reviews. I have introduced some of them in the article, but I left others in the Further readings section. I think it deserves the article here. — Indon (reply) — 08:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks somewhat better as rewritten, but much of the latter part of the 'history' section still reads as ad copy, talking about the great new features added to the place. And, I still see few sources. Nice work so far, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes again in the history section. Frankly, I didn't know about this subject, only to rewrite the spam look article into supposedly an encyclopaedic one. — Indon (reply) — 10:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that milehnort has attempted to vandalize this discussion page. Please see the revision history. I have restored the deleted comments. They've also blanked other talk pages regarding this article. That shows a strong case of WP:OWN where the author is concerned. Good faith can no longer be assumed. DarkAudit 13:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hotel seems to be notable. Perhaps a cleanup would ensure it doesn't read like an advert. If we could add more details about its history, etc it could reach something of the level InterContinental Chicago.xC | ☎ 07:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.