Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makena Beach & Golf 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. Although there are concerns about the article's content, it appears to be a notable topic. Could do with some toning down though. Number 5 7 11:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

Makena Beach & Golf Resort[edit]

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

Promotional article for a resort. Ireneshih (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete the only third party coverage is routine business coverage, otherwise this is an advert masquerading as an article. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete I tend to agree with LibStar. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure, the article is a little promotional and could use some pruning. But any property that gets covered significantly by the Wall Street Journal on three separate occasions is notable. Those are not "routine business coverage" - they are full length staff-written stories by the WSJ about a property located 5,000 miles from the WSJ's home base. That's not even to mention the more local coverage from the Pacific Business News (3 stories) and the expected puffery from publications like Travel and Leisure. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do agree with MelanieN that the article appears a little promotional. However, I noticed that virtually all pages in category "Resorts in Hawaii" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Resorts_in_Hawaii ) follow the same pattern, writing and illustration style. In addition, the reference to the WSJ should be considered significant indeed. MTK 21:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep - upon a review of sources (in the article), meets WP:CORPDEPTH. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see a number of issues including some sourcing issues, but there do indeed appear to my multiple, secondary, reliable sources and the resort seems to meet criteria for notability.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are reliable. I think it meets our notability criteria. Jim Carter ^(talk) 22:23, 30 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.