Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smithmore Castle

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smithmore Castle

Smithmore Castle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article lacks significant coverage in multiple independent

. The sources in the article The sourcing in the article at the time of nomination was:

1. Smithmore Castle's concierge page - clearly not an indepndent source
2. A Southern Living article - an actual article in a magazine that contrinutes to notability
3. Lonely planet - a listicle entry - not significant coverage
4. Katherine Elena Photography - personal blog and is just mentioned as the site of the photo shoot
5. WRAL - a listicle entry - amazingly, the name is not even mentioned
6. New& Observer - article is about the wedding photshoot and Smithmore is mentioned as the location, not significant coverage
7. Smokies - web site devoted to covering local attractions - unclear if this is a reliable source, and or what sort of audience is served
8. Only in your state - travel promotion web site so not a reliable source, see [1]
9. Smithmore castle history page - clearly not independent
10. Narcity - unclear as a reliable source - but the article reads as a travbvel fluff piece
11. Thrillist - listicle entry - not signifcant coverage
12. High Country Press - listicle entry - not significant coverage
13. Cheapism - listicle entry - not significant coverage

In considering the type and depth of coverage, this is insufficient to support an article. Whpq (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not an NRHP historic property, the one good source described above helps, we'd need a few more like that. Leaning delete, feels promotional otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Complete advert. No indication of Notability. And very poorly written. The originator’s edit history has a very strong whiff of undisclosed paid-for editing. Strike as grossly unfair. The editor in question has disclosed they have been paid by the venue’s chef to create their article. Although there’s nothing on their own page that says they’re being paid to write this crap. Truly horrible. And stet for the Delete. KJP1 (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Whpq analysis of referencing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2022 (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.