Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotel Montclair

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. czar 16:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Montclair

[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)

No indication of notability as per WP:NBUILD Building was only around for 30 years, does not appear to be a historic site. Rusf10 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems mistaken as the place is over 100 years old and it looks quite grand. It is easy to find detailed coverage and so the place passes WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So let's keep because it's old and there's a nice photo of it? Could you possibly come up with a reason less based in policy than this?--Rusf10 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Snow~~ Keep per Andrew Davidson. There seems to be a misconception here since the nomination is based on inaccurate information. I encourage the user to consider withdrawing the nomination in light of the clarifying information provided. Michepman (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Michepman:Why don't you educate yourself on what a WP:SNOW Keep is. Two votes does not equal a snow keep and is is beyond ridiculous for you to suggest otherwise. Andrew has not provided any policy based reason to keep, other than his usual flawed argument that if at least one source exists somewhere then the article meets WP:GNG. This is not true. GNG requires significant coverage in multiple sources. And even then it only creates a presumption, so it still debatable whether the subject passes GNG. We only have two local sources that even mention the subject. That's far from auto-passing GNG.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10: - Fair enough. I will strike through the 'snow' reference per your feedback. I still think that this article is notable though. Michepman (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This subject is on the razor's edge of notability, but I think it may qualify as notable under the following provision of WP:NBuilding, which touches on architectural works which may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. I did find a few sources which covered this building in some amount of depth (beyond the usual maps and the like) and it does seem to have had some amount of regional prominence even though I personally had never heard of it before. 65.229.27.130 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per RS - was established 1907 and now apparently defunct. And also possible WP:NBUILDING pass. The nominator missed the mark, there is no shame in it. Lightburst (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is enough significant coverage that is beyond a "passing mention" for this to pass our guidelines. The nom is under the curious notion that a hotel can't be notable if it was "only around for 30 years" as if there is some quantitative lifespan of a topic in our notability guidelines. A hotel could be notable if it was around for one year. Oakshade (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2019 (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.