Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in the Philippines (2nd nomination)

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in the Philippines[edit]

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

long list of empty sections, red linked (=non-notable) hotels, international hotel chains and links to disambiguation pages. In this way it does not serve any purpose and it should be a candidate for WP:TNT The Banner talk 13:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem content is largely the work of one IP editor within the past couple months, so reverting back to an earlier stage (such as here, though there may be a better point) will clear out nearly everything you're complaining about. Please do check the edit history of articles you nominate in the future when the problem is the content but not the topic. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Only after posting the AfD I noticed that it was AfD'ed earlier for exactly the same as my arguments. clearly, doing nice is not solving the problem of this article. You will only have less red links when reverting and p**s off an IP. The Banner talk 16:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - To which I need only respond WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. postdlf (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not ask for clean up, I have asked for removal to make a clean start possible, conform WP:TNT. The Banner talk 18:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY.~~ Carrite (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has become an index of blue links. I will stand down to ease the reading of consensus. Carrite (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Part of a bigger series of Category:Lists of hotels by country. Revert it back to the last good version and ask for page protection (say 2-4 weeks) and address the issue of the IP edits on the talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What version do you suggest? A quick look gives me the idea that the article was never really better than the present state. The Banner talk 18:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The current version. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts, and my comments in the previous AFD: that there are a sufficient number of notable hotels in the Philippines to merit an index of them per WP:LISTPURP and the list should exist as a complement to Category:Hotels in the Philippines per WP:CLN. WP:VAGUEWAVEing at NOTDIR doesn't remotely rebut that, nor does pointing to bad edits made to the page (as you will probably have with any list of businesses of any type), which in any event were mostly recent. If such edits persist after reversion, then I'm all for page protection (particularly as they all came from IPs, so semi-protection alone might do the trick). And as there is a better version in the page history to revert to as I note above, WP:TNT is inapplicable. postdlf (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:TNT is not a policy and is explicitly contradicted by our actual policies: WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Nominations which are so grossly erroneous should be speedily closed. Andrew (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The list has now been improved to a point where the nominator's concerns are no longer relevant, mainly just by reverting as I said above. I added a couple more entries I found in the corresponding category; there may be more that I missed. I don't know enough about Philippines geography to know whether the current header subdivisions make sense so I left that intact for now. Maybe a single sortable table with columns for province and/or city would make more sense given that there aren't such a large number overall. postdlf (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To the extent that any problems remain, they're fixable.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Postdlf who's removed all the shit & tidied it up :) - Thanks Postdlf :), As for the nom - AFD's aren't for cleanup and you could've just removed all the shit yourself?. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never asked for clean up. That is 100% the own initiative of Postdlf. The Banner talk 23:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, I just don't know why you haden't checked the history prior to nominating ? But it's all fixed so all's good :) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I admit, not good enough to find the earlier AfD for the same reason. But seeing the cry for help from Postdlf, the article looks like a red link-magnet. The Banner talk 07:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Following good work by Postdlf this is now a perfectly respectable list. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More eyes on the list, please; the same editor (both as an IP and as a registered editor) is persisting in restoring the same edits in the same manner, with minimal communication. postdlf (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:HEY - with the red limk-cruft removed. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2014 (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.