Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prairie Queen Hotel

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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Queen Hotel[edit]

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

This is a non-notable building that existed for only 23 years and has not existed for 83 years. Its significance is and was only local in nature. This good faith creation simply is not notable.

Note: This and similar articles were PRODed and no objections were received within seven days, but this and the others were objected shortly thereafter before they were reviewed by an admin, hence this now being an AfD. The reason for the objection was "Because the articles seem to have merit". Hwy43 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Seems to be a promising topic and a significant structure in that town. Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, the worst cases would be merger into Stirling, Alberta. Andrew D. (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see how notability could be established in this case. PK T(alk) 23:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a Google search of "Prairie Queen Hotel" found a book of the same name. the example text provided by Google was a couple of sentences which are the same as the lead of this article. ~~There is no preview online for this book, so it's difficult to tell how much of this article may be a copyright violation.~~—Anne Delong (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne Delong, this does not surprise me. The editor that created the article has a history of copyright violations. One discussion remains on the editor's talk, but there is also this, and I believe there are records as well on past AfDs as well. Confirmed and suspected socks that have created similar articles have the same track record of copyright violations. Hwy43 (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That book was created from Wikipedia content and so there's no copyright issue. This article has existed for 7 years now and so has been extensively copied across the internet. It would be unhelpful to now delete the original. The content such as the photographs indicates that the primary author had access to local sources such as newspapers which are difficult to Google. That makes it difficult to improve the article but it would be disruptive to remove it altogether when there are better alternatives. Please understand that deletion does not actually delete anything; it just makes it inaccessible to ordinary editors. I can't see any reason to restrict this content to administrators. Andrew D. (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't look at the link. Looks like it is derived from or mirrored content from here then. I strike the above as an incorrect assumption. Hwy43 (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, are you referring to the text that follows "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" at the link provided by Anne? I don't know if we can even confirm this is example text from the book and thereby be confident it was a book created from Wikipedia content (unless I'm missing something that is more explicit). Rather, the book entry could have lacked a summary so a summary of the book's subject could have been grabbed from the Wikipedia article. Hwy43 (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That "book" seems to be the work of VDM Publishing. Please see The Dusty Bookcase for an account of the other work of Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn. Andrew D. (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice the summary about the book being created from Wikipedia articles. I have stricken the sentence about copyright. Although flickr isn't a reliable source, if the caption on this link is correctly transcribed, the photograph is indeed from a news article. There is also an extensive article in the book Stirling, its story and people : 1899-1980 which contains a reprint of the photograph. I couldn't find the publication date, but the title suggests it's about 1980.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne Delong, note that book was created and published by the Stirling Sunset Society, now the Stirling Historical Society. Such books prepared by local volunteer historical societies are rarely enough to establish widespread notability about local events, buildings, etc. on their own as they give more weight to local things that are not significant beyond that local community. Also, the tone of the news article is that of a promotional advertisement. We need better sources than the book and newspaper advertisement to establish true notability. The news article is WP:ROUTINE coverage about the operation of the hotel during the short period it actually existed. Hwy43 (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small town hotel, no notability established. 117Avenue (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. A short-lived old building, built in 1909, demolished in 1932. Apparently the town didn't think enough of its historical significance to try to preserve it. None of the information in the article is verified. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh Nice article, with good illustrations, on an interesting historical topic. Representative of what we should be publishing (as opposed to the contemporary pop culture crap which we have far too much of). Sadly, however, I can't find anything which meets WP:RS, so I can't in good faith argue to keep. But I also can't argue to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to garner significant coverage. Like RoySmith, I think the article is well done. Too bad we did not have historic registers back in the 1920's. However, as it was marked for demolition so soon after being built I suspect there were structural problems on the upper floors. Many small towns with big dreams had hotels like this one built during the Gilded Age, in the west when the railroads went through. Many are long gone, but many have made it onto state and federal historic registers. --Bejnar (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2015 (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.