Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ledo 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ledo Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a demolished hotel, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. The referencing here is more than 50 per cent reference bombed to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, such as photographs and directory entries and the self-published websites or Twitter feeds of entities named in the article. And even what there is for proper media coverage isn't building a particularly strong case for notability, as it's entirely local coverage either (a) focusing specifically on the site's place in the city's perennially changing arena-block redevelopment project rather than anything that would establish that it was ever actually noteworthy as a hotel, or (b) tangentially verifying other facts that have nothing whatsoever to do with the hotel, like the existence of the McEwen Architecture School and the farmer's market.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this hotel from having to have a stronger notability claim than just having existed, or from having to have more than just "what is to be done to redevelop the land it used to be on?" for coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Sources 9, 16, 19 and 20 are about the structure. Should be ok to keep Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- also covered here [1], it's a well known structure in Sudbury. Or it was, this helps tell the story. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Those sources are about the efforts to redevelop the land that the hotel was formerly on, not about the hotel as a hotel — and that accounts for just 12 per cent of the footnoting here, while 78 per cent of it is non-notability-building junk. The question isn't whether it was well-known locally, a thing which every public building anywhere can always claim; the question is whether it there's a reason why people beyond Sudbury, like in Winnipeg or Calgary or Vancouver or Halifax or Boston, might have heard of it and want or need to read an article about it. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's not the test, as you well know. The test is whether there are enough secondary sources to allow for an article on the building, and there's plenty, and that doesn't even include a historical newspaper archive search typically required for these sorts of buildings. We have plenty of articles on historical buildings in the USA which aren't particularly notable because of how we interpret the national historic register there. A historic hotel in Sudbury with a great deal of local chatter about it and its redevelopment easily gets over the bar. Furthermore, there are 32 sources, and some of them are "junk," like the link to Google Maps - but it's far less than 78 percent. SportingFlyer T·C 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Those sources are about the efforts to redevelop the land that the hotel was formerly on, not about the hotel as a hotel — and that accounts for just 12 per cent of the footnoting here, while 78 per cent of it is non-notability-building junk. The question isn't whether it was well-known locally, a thing which every public building anywhere can always claim; the question is whether it there's a reason why people beyond Sudbury, like in Winnipeg or Calgary or Vancouver or Halifax or Boston, might have heard of it and want or need to read an article about it. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep seems to easily pass GNG to me both with sources in the article and in a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I have checked enough sources to verify that the GNG is clearly met. The arguments for deletion do not seem to be grounded in policy. Buildings with zero claim to notability do not get this much coverage. Toadspike [Talk] 07:45, 8 June 2024 (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.