Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Hotel, Gibraltar

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Hotel, Gibraltar (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)

Contested prod. Prod reason was "WP:NOTTRAVEL: "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like." If there is anything notable about the hotel beyond being a hotel, the article should state this and focus on this. As it stands, this is a WP:NOT violation." The article was subsequently improved, but the additions so far are unsourced speculation[1] and a one-line mention in one book[2]. Looking at available sources, the same thing is mentioned in two other books, also as an extremely passing mention. Other sources for this hotel are many travel guides. Apart from those short mentions, covered by NOTTRAVEL, I haven't found a single source that gives any attention to the Bristol Hotel. Many mentions (similar to "X stayed at the Bristol Hotel"), but not a single source where the Bristol Hotel, or events at it, are the focus of significant attention. Fram (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a prominent and historic hotel in this key entrepot and strategic junction of the British Empire. There seem to be plenty of sources out there and I've only just got started on fleshing out this stub. The nomination appears to be deliberate disruption of work-in-progress, without any attempt at tagging or proper discussion on the talk page with the various experienced editors involved. Hotels are obviously of interest to travellers but this doesn't mean that we don't cover them. We have numerous categories and articles devoted to hotels such as Category:Hotels by city. The only reason to pick on this one seems to be some nasty Wikipolitics. Warden (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At the very worst merge into an article Hotels in Gibraltar. The Rock hotel is also notable BTW, and both are significant architecturally. Hotels have a rough time on wikipedia but I consider the more notable historic ones as every bit as valid encyclopedic material as cathedrals and theatres..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Poorly sourced commercial spam, which probably would not exist if not for the You Can Be A Winner Gibraltarpedia project. Wikipedia is not a travel guidebook. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't start articles on hotels which don't seem to be notable architecturally or as colonial type hotels. look at the place [3], its a notable landmark in Gibraltar. Obviously this article is going to have difficulty staying now though as people are convinced there is some sort of paid tourist promotion going on and hotels are probably the first port of call for deletion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is being in Gibraltar now a deletion criteria? I don't think so! Apart from that it satisfies WP:GNG. Agathoclea (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two most important hotels are Bristol Hotel and the Rock . Both are notable as colonial architectural buildings in their own right and as major landmarks in Gibraltar.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to me that this article satisfies WP:GNG, architecturally and as a colonial era hotel still in operation. If it is informative to a tourist or business traveler, so be it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is in need of some obvious expansion (history, architect, etc) but it appears notable per Warden, Dthomsen8, and Dr. Blofeld. Ryan Vesey 20:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes the article needs work but this doesn't qualify it for deletion. Meets WP:GNG. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 22:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Warden; clearly satisfies the requirements. Prioryman (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: obviously notable. Per Dr. Blofeld. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems notable to me too. Kumioko (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources appear to exist to make it notableand have it pass WP:GNG. Multiple sources. Book sources. Sources dating over an extended period of time. Sources where the hotel is mentioned in the name in the media. These all go towards establishing notability. Article has sources. Not seeing the advertising nature of the article. Not seeing anything that would result in commercial gain for the hotel as a result of the article existing. (Unless the argument is any business that has an article gets commercial gain by virtue of the articles existence.) If there is wording that is advertisement, the correct answer is to improve the pose, not to delete the article. --LauraHale (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A number of people have commented on this hotel being notable architecturally. The article says nothing about the architecture of the hotel (apart from it being a white colonial building), or of it being listed or otherwise noted architecturally. Can anyone here enlighten me what these comments are based on then? Fram (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't mean literally that its architecture is somehow fascinating and discussed in books, we mean it is a "notable historic structure" which if you look back through the archives is clearly of note to Gibraltar's history, especially its war functions.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So "notable as colonial architectural buildings in their own right" doesn't mean what it says. Thanks for confirming this. The other aspects (war function and so on) can be discussed, but it is easier and more correct if only pertinent (or supported) arguments are used. Fram (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would generally judge any fairly large colonial building in the centre of any town to probably be of some notability to the history of the town. I don't think its a listed building though which I had thought likely and as somebody said below its not exactly Raffles in terms of a notable white colonial building, but I believe enough sources have been compiled to make the article acceptable even if not ideal. I think you may have trouble with other hotels apart from Rock Hotel though on Gibraltar, one or two may be borderline, others may not be notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to be a notable historic structure in Gibraltar. While the rescue efforts have gone a long way in showing notability, and those efforts are entirely laudable, some have added information that does not appear to encyclopedic. For example, information on historic room rate has been added; such information does not appear to be encyclopedic; this is not a travel wiki. Cbl62 (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is hardly as notable as, say, the Ritz or Raffles, but it gets across the threshold of notability due to some sustained media coverage over time. I'd suggest pruning the notability-by-association stuff about the various famous people who've stayed in the hotel though. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (in fact WP:SNOWBALL). Accusations of spamming are both fallacious and pointy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is informative and forms part of Gibraltar's heritageToromedia (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ditto Toromedia. --Ipigott (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --doncram 20:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2012 (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.