Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Court of Flags Resort

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. Note that the merge arguments persuasively argue that some information here should be included in other articles but do not persuasively argue that this one should not continue to exist. Mango juice^talk 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Court of Flags Resort[edit]

The resort's only claim to notability is its novel construction type, something that is not unique to this facility (see Disney's Contemporary Resort or Disney's Polynesian Resort for examples). As to external resources, Google returns around 95 results regarding the resort, not necessarily reflecting much in the way of notability. csaribay (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an architect in the house? While the building itself might not be notable (it's been torn down now), the "novel construction type" referred to is notable in architecture. For those who don't care to read the article, it used a technique where the rooms were prefabricated modular units that were hoisted into the building's frame. As the article points out, there were a lot of problems that came with that type of construction. Modular building and Modular home are articles that refer to stand-alone prefabs. I'd like to see this redirected and merged to an article about that concept in building, for which some references can be found. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is nothing about this article that says it not notable and it meets WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY policies.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in the article demonstrate notability. The fact that the building has been demolished does not make it less notable. Notability does not expire. For another notable example of modular construction, please see Habitat 67. --Eastmain (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever. So far as I can tell, this former Ramada Inn was not any more notable than any other hotel in Orlando, Florida. I'll concede that it got mentioned in the "Orlando Business Journal" three times, and someone has a nostalgia site about it at in a website called "bigfloridacountry.com". The place rates a mention in an article about buildings of that type, however. Mandsford (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't doubt the truth or sourcing of the information presented in the article. However, I disagree that this establishment was or is notable for inclusion, where current policy suggests that a topic receive significant coverage from independent, reliable sources as the bar to inclusion. I know that this isn't a substantive fact in and of itself, but a Google search for the resort suggests otherwise. The only mainstream coverage I have been able to find involves the resort's proposed renovation and subsequent closure, both by the Orlando Business Journal. I'm more in line with Mandsford's suggestion of merging this article with Modular building if need be, not keeping this article. csaribay (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I generally tend towards deletionism, but this hotel was a major player in the Orlando area in the 1970's, before Walt Disney World built dozens of new hotels on-site. Since its heydey was in the 1970's, there is little data available online, but this is not just another hotel, and even one of the references notes that it was "one of Orlando's original landmark resorts", which would imply that it is notable. Horologium (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford and csaribay.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:18, 11 July 2008 (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.