Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritz Carlton (Toronto)

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 of the debate was Delete. Avi 05:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ritz_Carlton_(Toronto)[edit]

No apparent encyclopaedic value. --Krytan talk 02:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Bad faith admitted by proposer - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Hotel, Toronto. Tevildo 12:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep due to admitted bad-faith nom. BoojiBoy 13:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep speedily, or slow WilyD 18:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect - Though apparently a bad faith nom, single hotels of a chain do not usually merit their own articles. Wickethewok 18:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Wickethewok. This may have been a bad faith AFD but the article needs to be relisted for AFD anyhow on the grounds of non-notability and WP:NOT a crystal ball. The article itself says this hotel is something planned for the future. My suggestion is close the AFD as bad-faith and immediately relist for AFD. KleenupKrew 20:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable hotel, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a crystal ball doesn't cover things for which preparations are underway - so it may not apply here. WilyD 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wickethewok and Coredesat; let's not be so bound by procedural minutiae as to insist on keeping a bad article just because of the manner in which it was nominated for deletion. — Haeleth Talk 22:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If and when the hotel is built, it will be a Toronto landmark. --TruthbringerToronto 07:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Thats blatant crystal-ballism, Truthy. Wickethewok 16:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though this is a bad faith nom, this doesn't seem to meet any possbile inclusion criteris we could apply to it.Inner Earth 11:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If anything is to be kept it should be merged with the corporate entity Ritz-Carlton in a section called "Projects". In 2009 when the hotel is complete, then it merits an article. --Paul from Michigan 17:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be notable when it's built but not before then. Eluchil404 18:21, 1 July 2006 (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.