Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canopy by Hilton Portland Pearl District

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy by Hilton Portland Pearl District

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A run-of-the-mill, newly-opened hotel of no significant distinction or notoriety. Mangoe (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG, multiple reliable sources with detailed coverage (disclaimer: article creator). There's coverage of the hotel's planning, construction, interior design, exterior design, LEED certification, amenities, history, management, restaurant, and reception. That's enough in my book! I vote to expand, not delete, the entry. Also, nominator's rationale is not an assessment of secondary coverage (or lack thereof). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it all looks like routine local and trade journal stuff. Mangoe (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree. Just FYI, The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. Also, I've shared links to 3 Fodor's books on the talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lack of notability would be the only reason to delete this, and the article meets the criteria with eleven varied, credible sources. --Lockley (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Oregonian sources establish notability. Ample sourcing passes
talk) 09:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The Oregonian, Daily Journal of Commerce, and other RS establish notability. As mentioned by Another Believer, The Oregonian is "the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation." --Kbabej (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above. —AFreshStart (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though I'm not positive on the solidity of the first on the west coast claim. Also the Oregonian is enough for WP:ORG, in addition to GNG !votes above. Star Mississippi 01:48, 17 October 2021 (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.