Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porta Hotel Antigua

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. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Porta Hotel Antigua

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

No refs at all. Claims notability but not supported in any way. Very visible evidence of COI editing. Essentially an advertisement. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that somebody from the hotel tried to expand it today doesn't make it a legit deletion candidate. It easily passes notability requirements.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - today's intervention by a COI editor has no bearing whatsoever on the nomination. My view of the article was immediately after the reversion of a COI edit. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets the notability guidelines since it is discussed in depth by several reliable independent sources. The fact that these are mostly travel guides is not relevant. They do not seem to be paid reviews, and the writers have taken the trouble to visit and describe the hotel in some detail. It seems to be one of the oldest and fanciest places to stay in the city. I have tried to tone down the article so it does not read too much like an advert - not sure if I have succeeded. But the fact that it could be improved is independent of whether it should be kept. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with travel guides is the extent to which they might describe every resort hotel, and not be discriminating. Some do; some do not--I am not familiar with the ones used as references here. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A travel guide may list many of the hotels in a city, but most of the entries are just bare directory-style entries: address, phone, website, price range, pool y/n, restaurants y/n, credit cards accepted etc. But when several travel guide entries give multi-paragraph narrative descriptions, different from the hotel's own description and from the other guides, those count as independent discussion of the topic and demonstrate notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep For being chosen as one of the top five by Condé Nast Traveler. I couldn't find that statement in the sources used, but did find [1]. Ryan Vesey 00:16, 7 January 2013 (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.