Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennium Alaskan Hotel

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Alaskan Hotel[edit]

Millennium Alaskan Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable individual hotel; fails news search - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Heh, if we deleted every article because it only got 2 news results in the past month, goodbye 99% of our articles on people who died before 2005 or so. This topic gets 500+ results in a proper news search of all stories, not just recent ones, and many seem to be about the hotel. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply to buildings. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • At any rate I have added two claims of importance with references. It's the headquarters of basically Alaska's best known event... seems like a genuine claim of notability. --Chiliad22 (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't contagious that way. Drawn Some (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well good, we won't get a virus then. Notability is about the existence of sources... sources exist. I was just adding claims of importance so no one tries to speedy delete it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, notability (not notability) is about multiple reliable sources which discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it wasn't. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: added references are behind paygates, so it's difficult to verify. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got them for free... most every public library offers access to Newsbank or some equivalent news search. Just because sources are not instantly accessible to anyone who clicks a link doesn't mean they're less valid. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said they were "less valid"; I simply said that they were difficult to verify. Please don't imply I've said something I haven't. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't imply you said that. I was just pointing out they're valid even if they are "difficult" to access. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The second reference is trivial. The third appears to be the only in-depth coverage in an independent reliable source and even though it reads like a press release it doesn't seem to be one. That still doesn't constitute "significant" in-depth coverage. For examples of notable hotels, see Peabody Hotel or The Greenbrier. Drawn Some (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Fails "news search"? Not only articles can be notable with no hits on "news searches" (books, magazines, government records, etc), but the nom only performed a current news search and not a complete google archive news search (Under the nom's criteria Winston Churchill would "fail a news search"). That said, the independent coverage so far isn't very great, but it's beyond the scope of "trivial" (ie "passing mention" or "directory listing") so it seems worthy of inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Standard Google search returned a plethora of ads and promotional sites that I could not make heads or tails of. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References #2 and #3 are independent of the subject and therefore meet Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria in establishing notability. Sebwite (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: For my own edification, then, can someone who has access to these references copy-paste them to me or something? I cannot get past the "pay"gate. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Never mind; I got it. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I question reference #2 as being a non-trivial source because it looks as if it were a small snippet, or a bullet point, and not a focused discussion of the subject. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, that it is the headquarters of the Iditarod race is maybe worth mentioning in a sentence at Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race. Nothing else is particularly noteworthy for a hotel, and I'd be surprised if it is the only hotel to be used as the headquarters for a sporting event. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. Text from article reads like an advert, which is not surprising since the first paragraph is lightly paraphrased from this promo. The notable Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race occurs annually, but its article does not mention this hotel, and notability is not inherited. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I don't see any consensus, so i would not close this AfD yet. But it is arguably notable as the HQ of a major cross-country sporting event. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Millennium_Alaskan_Hotel&oldid=1138083250"