Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Edward Hotel (Jackson, MS, USA)

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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Edward Hotel (Jackson, MS, USA)[edit]

Twice prodded. User:Salad Days called it a "nn vacant hotel"; User:MER-C says "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no assertion of notability for both the old and new versions." NickelShoe (Talk) 01:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak keep It sounds like it might be a historic building, but it's not written enough to tell. If there's something of interest with this place, keep the article and get it fixed. If not, get rid of it. --Sable232 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, building is "part of the West Capitol Street Historic District, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places[1], and is designated as both a Mississippi Landmark and a Jackson Landmark", was listed as "most endangered" (top 10) in 1999.[2] It was also apparently once the home of Okeh Records (important blues label).[3] --Dhartung | Talk 01:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to whomever got the references in there! I would also note that the article should be moved to King Edward Hotel (Jackson, Mississippi), disambiguation should not use postal codes. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is welcome back when it's open and notable. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. "The hotel was the center of Jackson society and politics for over forty years." --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep National historic places and state historic places are notable. This building vacant or not is notable.--John Lake 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Completely unreferenced. Salad Days 02:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It might be notable because of historical value and I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, but it needs serious clean up and refs. TSO1D 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fix, don't destroy. Grace Note 10:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and extend the article. Ck l o stsw o rd|^queta!|_Suggestions? 11:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building, as built in 1923, is on the National Register of Historic Places, is listed among the 10 most endangered historic structures in Mississippi, and marks 140 years of Mississippi history. After 15 years of talks about reviving the hotel, city officials have the money to move forward with plans to turn the 83-year-old King Edward into 72 high-end one- and two-bedroom condominiums and 152 hotel rooms.[4] -- Jreferee 16:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a number of independent references to its notability from newspapers including a quote from the mayor that it it the "linchpin" of economic redevelopment, and is on the National Register. Edison 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of enough importance to warrant a keep. Xanucia 22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important enough to warrant a keep. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough...has citations and everything. — Seadog^Talk 00:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's listed in the National Register of Historic Places and seems to have good refs. Doc Tropics 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs moving to a better disambiguator though. FiggyBee 03:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not a good article as now written, it clearly is an article about a notable facility. WVhybrid 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is somewhat notable. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable †he Bread 00:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since all of the concerns have been met. MER-C 02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a historical site, definitely notable, well written in its current state. Hope to see the article expand further. Ter e nc e Ong 06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, move to King Edward Hotel (Jackson) since the current name does not follow the guidelines and we don't need the extra disambiguation suggested above. Vegaswikian 07:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it is notable as historic site and can be verified now too Yuckfoo 02:15, 21 December 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.