Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in the Philippines

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. Two things are clear though, it needs a clean-up and it needs references. J04n(talk page) 22:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in the Philippines[edit]

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

Delete, basically a giant page of Redlinks, wiki is not a random listing and there is absolutely no sources to show that these hotels are indeed notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside of WP's scope as shown by various items on WP:NOT: Not a directory, travel guide, etc. If you want WP to be a guide to businesses why stop at hotels in the Philippines? How about art galleries in Argentina, shoe stores in Singapore until we have a world-wide Yellow Pages? Borock (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we assume that none of the redlinks merit an article (which may or may not be true; the lack of sources presently in the list does not tell us anything), we still have a core of at least a couple dozen articles for this list to index, as a complement to Category:Hotels in the Philippines. So keep per WP:CLN and WP:LISTPURP. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per reasoning by Borock. The question is whether the subject of the list notable? I have to say no, sure, hotels in general are covered in reliable sources such as in travel guides, but that goes into WP:NOT. Are there notable hotels in the Philippines? Yes. Should there be a category for that? Yes. Should there be an extensive list of all hotels in the Philippines? No.
Now, I can see an arguement for keep per, WP:NOTCLEANUP, as it could be argued that if the non-notable hotels are removed from the list, than it should be truer to what a Wikipedia quality list should be, but then that leaves us with the question is the subject of hotels in the Philippines notable in and of itself? That I am not so sure, and a category can handle an inhouse listing of articles that are about hotels in the Philippines.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If a category is appropriate, then a list presumptively is as well, per WP:CLN. And "Hotels in the Philippines" does not have to be a viable prose article topic for it to be appropriate to index our articles on such notable hotels in a single list to aid reader navigation, as WP:LISTPURP recognizes. Seen another way, hotel is a notable topic, there are many notable individual hotels, and one of the most useful and obvious ways to subdivide a list of those hotels is by the country in which they are located. postdlf (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and then trim out all redlinks, add hidden text stating "do not add redlinks w/o refs", and make sure that all hotels AND former/defunct/demolished hotels with articles are here. I will be happy to do all that. the subject is inherently notable, as there are notable hotels in the philippines, and we have enough articles to justify a stubby list. The list of course should have refs in it, even for blue linked names, but thats not an argument for deletion. The list for hotels in the US is pretty nice.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP, then clean-up, perhaps moving the red links to the talk page. "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Altho some of the redlinks can be very quickly used for viable stubs, the odds are that many will never make articles. That's no reason for not making a list of the ones that are notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are so few good links that it is better to delete for now. Do not salt the earth. If a good list is developed, it can be added.

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.