Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discovery Shores

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 merge/redirect to Boracay#Tourism. There is a clear consensus for deletion, but on the off chance that someone comes to the encyclopedia looking for this, it is harmless to merge some of the content to the article and section that would naturally host this material. The article is therefore effectively deleted (as there is no longer an article on the subject), but the information is not lost. bd2412 T 13:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Shores

Discovery Shores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

Non-notable page created from SPA to promote the resort, no major news coverage, clearly non-notable. There is no place for advertisement or promotion on WP. 157.37.170.168 (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh666 06:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Hi there! I created the page. I love the place, I've been there several times. So, close connection to the subject? I guess so. Notable? It sure looked that way to me, but that's for the Wikipedia guys to decide. But I noticed something else when I looked at page history. There were experienced Wikipedia people like Domdeparis and especially Eastmain, who tried to do something with my article, and there were some IP numbers who did nothing on Wikipedia but nominate my article for deletion several times. Does that normally happen? Because it looks strange to me. Barbare-asie (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No in-depth coverage from reliable sources. The most significant reference is the ABS-CBN article that talks about a six-month shutdown, which is not notable. Newslinger (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There seems to be adequate coverage from reliable news media in the Philippines. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A stub article with a lot of low quality sources including reviews. Ajf773 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. per Eastmain. 49.148.186.251 (talk)

— 49.148.186.251 contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It seems ip 49.148.186.251 has been editing-en-mass after it was pointed out they have made few contributions outside of this AfD. They also seem to have an unusual editing pattern, with their fifth recorded edit being to this AfD ([1]), their eighth edit being to User:Barbare-asie's (the article creator) talk page ([2]) with an improperly placed coi disclosure tag, and then removing the COI tag from this article with their ninth edit [3]. It is also a phillipino ip adress, the country where the subject resort is located.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable resort that fails
  WP:NOT) Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and WP:NOT directly states "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like", so while sourcing does make a claim to significance (awards won, for example) for the hotel, the article subject still fails WP:NOTE. Expanding upon this point, I feel that a hotel winning several non-notable, regional awards does not encyclopedic notability make.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:CORPDEPTH. Blog posts and reviews by questionable sources. NCORP specifically recommends not counting questionably independent sources when assessing notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:44, 3 August 2018 (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.