Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotel Tuller
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. (non-admin closure) Wine Guy~Talk 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hotel Tuller[edit]
- Hotel Tuller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable hotel. Not a historical building, and has since been demolished so clearly never was one. A few random mentions of things that happened at it does not make it notable, nor does its being used for conventions and banquets. Prod removed by User:DGG with reason of "that it's no longer there is irrelevant to notability . Sources added, from G News archive. First look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. See WP:BEFORE.", during which he added a few more trivial mention of a fire that occurred and someone found dead there. None of which incur any notability on the hotel itself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; the sources are only incidental and don't assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Contrary to the nom's claim that this was "Not a historical building", the book Detroit's Historic Hotels and Restaurants does an in-depth multi-paged profile of the hotel. Taking DGG's advice and following WP:BEFORE would've prevented that misjudgement. The nom also seems to be under the curious impression that if a building was demolished, I could not have been historical. I suppose the Globe Theatre (Newcastle Street) should be AfD'd as that was demolished. --Oakshade (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not make it a historical building. It is not a historical landmark (hence its being demolished). And the book does not give it a "multi-page profile" it is a book of 200 postcards of the "lesser-known second-class" by its own description, a few of which have this hotel on it. Try to remember WP:AGF and refrain from making personal remarks that have nothing to do with the discussion. 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- You've missed the point. Many buildings considered historical were not designated historical landmarks and were demolished. The Ambassador Hotel was extremely historic, not a historical landmark and was demolished. The original Pennsylvania Station (New York City) was extremely historical, was not an historical landmark and demolished. The theatre mentioned above was historic, but not designated an historical landmark and that was demolished. And that source, Detroit's Historic Hotels and Restaurants, profiles this topic for 8 pages. 8 pages is "multi-paged" to me. We go by secondary sources to describe what's "historic", not a single Wikipedia user's opinion.--Oakshade (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We also go by what multiple, reliable-sources consider historic, not a single locally written work that states itself that it is a listing of second-class, forgotten hotels and does not claim that they are historical beyond throwing a catchphrase in its title. The other hotels you mention also had significant coverage in reliable sources to show they were actually historic, versus random local newspaper stories that mention it as being a place an event was held or a the scene of a crime, and has nothing to do with the hotel itself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh my. You left out the part of that book summary that also states "Some of Detroits larger hotels were architectural masterpieces, nationally known, and were the center of social activities." The book profiled both types. It's not crystal clear if the author considered this hotel an "architectural masterpiece" or a "lesser-known second-class" one. As the author indicates this hotel was considered the "grand dame of Grand Circus Park," it probably was the former. Another source indicates a notable nationally popular orchestra, the Gerald Marks's Hotel Tuller Orchestra, was based there so it seems in fact it was "the center of social activities." Either way the significant coverage is still there. Oh, and another historical hotel that was demolished, The Dunes. I'll keep that on watch in case you AfD that for the same curious "has since been demolished" reason. --Oakshade (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the introductory text in Chapter 1: "Most of the largest and better-known hotels have been included-- the Tuller, the Pontchartrain, the Statler, the Book Cadillac, the Detroit Leland, the Webser, and the Whittier--as well as some smaller and lesser-known hotels including the Andoria, the North Pole, and the Yorba." That does make it crystal-clear that the author does not consider the Tuller a "lesser-known" hotel. Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh my. You left out the part of that book summary that also states "Some of Detroits larger hotels were architectural masterpieces, nationally known, and were the center of social activities." The book profiled both types. It's not crystal clear if the author considered this hotel an "architectural masterpiece" or a "lesser-known second-class" one. As the author indicates this hotel was considered the "grand dame of Grand Circus Park," it probably was the former. Another source indicates a notable nationally popular orchestra, the Gerald Marks's Hotel Tuller Orchestra, was based there so it seems in fact it was "the center of social activities." Either way the significant coverage is still there. Oh, and another historical hotel that was demolished, The Dunes. I'll keep that on watch in case you AfD that for the same curious "has since been demolished" reason. --Oakshade (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We also go by what multiple, reliable-sources consider historic, not a single locally written work that states itself that it is a listing of second-class, forgotten hotels and does not claim that they are historical beyond throwing a catchphrase in its title. The other hotels you mention also had significant coverage in reliable sources to show they were actually historic, versus random local newspaper stories that mention it as being a place an event was held or a the scene of a crime, and has nothing to do with the hotel itself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You've missed the point. Many buildings considered historical were not designated historical landmarks and were demolished. The Ambassador Hotel was extremely historic, not a historical landmark and was demolished. The original Pennsylvania Station (New York City) was extremely historical, was not an historical landmark and demolished. The theatre mentioned above was historic, but not designated an historical landmark and that was demolished. And that source, Detroit's Historic Hotels and Restaurants, profiles this topic for 8 pages. 8 pages is "multi-paged" to me. We go by secondary sources to describe what's "historic", not a single Wikipedia user's opinion.--Oakshade (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not make it a historical building. It is not a historical landmark (hence its being demolished). And the book does not give it a "multi-page profile" it is a book of 200 postcards of the "lesser-known second-class" by its own description, a few of which have this hotel on it. Try to remember WP:AGF and refrain from making personal remarks that have nothing to do with the discussion. 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Notability established by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point to actual substantial coverage, not the mentions in passing in random news stories currently in the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Oakshade's source "Detroit's Historic Hotels and Restaurants". Also an account of its construction can be found in The city of Detroit, Michigan, 1701-1922, volume 3, and a detailed article concerning its management appears in Hotel Monthly, volume 34 issue 399, published in 1926. (The link for Hotel Monthly won't show it but you can see some of the text on this Google books search). These sources seem reliable, independent, and their coverage seems to be significant both in the regular English sense of the word and the "non-trivial" sense required by WP:N. The article therefore passes WP:N and should be retained. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The Hotel Tuller is documented in the National Park Service's Historic American Buildings Survey. ("The Historic American Buildings Survey is the nation's first federal preservation program, begun in 1933 to document America's architectural heritage.") That's a slam-dunk demonstration of notability. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The various sources listed above and the fact that the building is documented in the Historic American Buildings Survey demonstrate rather clearly that this building is notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:17, 1 March 2010 (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.