Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Artisan Hotel

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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Artisan Hotel

The Artisan Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable hotel Orange Mike | Talk 01:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep as no argument for deletion has been advanced. WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE is not an argument for deletion. Toohool (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the merits as well. There is persistent, substantial coverage of the topic by regional sources over a long period of time to satisfy GNG. Toohool (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as indicated by Toohool. To save time I'll also state that there seem sufficient sources (some in article, some elsewhere under google news & books) to justify under WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep the implicit reason for deletion is that WP:GNG is not met. A 64-room hotel in Vegas won't meet any SNG. There seems to (barely) be enough for GNG amidst a sea of really bad content and references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GEOFEAT - Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.. I'm just not seeing anything that can be referenced to bring notability for the building. The current article's content is tiptoeing around the subject but doesn't present anything about why this building is significant as a separate article. If there's an article relevant for this within a list, a merge wouldn't be a bad idea either. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article itself doesn't especially point out importance - have a good read through the sources. There seems to be sufficient stress in a variety of them to satisfy the social importance - certainly to the degree that is satisfied by "significant coverage [etc]". Nosebagbear (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I understand that. I just don't see it with the current history of it with what is presented. I'm trying to think along National Register of Historic Places as that brings up some basis of "historical significance" even on a social level. The social elements seem as a coatrack that reminds me of the classic "In popular culture" sections. I'll look at some of the sources regardless to see if anything stands out. – TheGridExe (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep per power enwiki Wolfson5 (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Removing all press releases and promotional articles from the sources, appears to scrape past WP:GNG, mostly from the Sun and Spokane articles. SportingFlyer talk 21:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. The sourcing is hyper-local and / or WP:SPIP. This is a sales brochure / invesment prospectus, with content such as

"In May 2010, The Artisan started holding themed invite-only pool parties.[21] The Artisan also gained note for marketing a "buyout" option, allowing a patron to rent the entire property.[22]" Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per just barely enough sourcing. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:19, 7 June 2018 (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.