Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in Singapore: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:10, 2 August 2007

List of hotels in Singapore

I originally put a {{prod}} tag with the rationale

Spam magnet. 90% redlinks and most of these articles, if created, would be deleted as non-notable or spam. Also, Wikipedia is not the Lonely Planet.

This was removed by Kappa with the edit summary

red links can be removed with the "edit this page" button.

Still, Wikipedia is not a directory and such listings without context are useless. See hotels in London for an article that has some value. Pascal.Tesson 23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --Russavia 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's (obviously) useful to be able to find wikipedia articles about hotels in specific areas of Singapore. Kappa 00:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And that is what wikitravel is for. or the Yellow Pages. Or the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board office or website. It is not what Wikipedia is for. --Russavia 00:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board office is where I should be going to navigate wikipedia. That would explain why navigation around here sucks so badly. Kappa 00:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the STPB is where you go to find out about hotels in specific areas of Singapore, which is what your reasoning is, particularly as 90%+ of the links are red-links with NO articles. --Russavia 00:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to follow the discussion. I am looking for encylopedic discussions of notable hotels, not a place to stay. Kappa 00:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one would be looking for articles of notable hotels in Singapore, then this list is not where they will find them as one can plainly see, but they will find them at Category:Hotels_in_Singapore which is obviously already in use.

Please try to follow the discussion. If one was looking for articles about notable hotels in a particular area of Singapore, say Chinatown, one would be able to do so using this list, but not by means of the category. Kappa 00:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than up with the discussion. Look at the list, you aren't going to find any articles on notable hotels in Chinatown by using said list, and if you were, it likely wouldn't meet the bare minimum notability criteria and be put up for AfD, as per the one hotel you will find an article for in the Chinatown section of the list, the Damenlou Hotel. --Russavia 01:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if Damenlou Hotel is non-notable it will soon be a redlink again... are you saying none of the articles about hotels in Downtown or Orchard Road are notable? Kappa 01:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not travel guide or a directory, so a list of the more notable ones can be put in the main article since it is not a large area of land.--JForget 00:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main article being Singapore ? Kappa 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel directory. Keb25 00:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Evidence that the Hotels in London article is a viable article should suggest that a Hotels in Singapore article could work, although perhaps not a List of hotels in Singapore. Luke! 01:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't actually seen any sensible reasons not to organize Singaporean hotels by location. Kappa 02:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make it clear that the debate is not centered on whether Singaporean hotels should be organized by location, it's about whether such a list should be on Wikipedia. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to be a directory of hotels no matter how cleverly or conveniently organized. This list is simply too far away from our core objectives. Why does Hotels in London work? Because it at least tries to incorporate some context: a bit of history on how, when and why the hotel business took shape, a bit of analysis of trends, a bit of analysis of what types of hotels appear in what kind of neighborhood. This list on the other hand provides absolutely nothing. It does not try to identify hotels which are significant in any shape or form, it does not try to provide context. It's as encyclopedic as a list of streets in Singapore or a list of supermarkets in Singapore. Pascal.Tesson 02:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are telling me your core objectives don't include helping readers find articles they are looking for? Kappa 03:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm telling you that my core objectives don't include maintaining indiscriminate lists with 85% redlinks, another 5% on AfD and another 5% redirecting to the article for the chain of hotels. In the same spirit, my idea of encyclopedic content does not make room for vague classifications like "budget" and "boutique hotels". If you find the navigation of the category so problematic, you can always create a navigation box which will work just as well and won't be as bad a spam magnet. Pascal.Tesson 04:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your problem is with the current state of the list, it's unfortunate that you are trying to pretend that it's inherently against policy to have this kind of thing - implying it's pointless to try to clean it up. IMO templates imply that they contain a complete set so they are unsuitable for this kind of purpose. Also they leave no room for notes on size, date of foundation, references etc. Kappa 21:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are giving reasons for improving the article, not deleting it. Kamryn · Talk 22:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless this list contains nothing but full addressess and contact numbers etc, it dosent work as a "directory", and is hardly useful as a "travel guide". This is nothing more than a simple Wikipedia:Lists, and that is permissable in wikipedia. Otherwise, I will be questioning the existance of List of airports in Russia, for example.--Huaiwei 06:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, evidently useful list. An article being in poor shape is not a reason for deleting it (or we would lose 90% of our content). Kamryn · Talk 22:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I get a chuckle out of that one... I suppose I also have a strong bias against New York. Pascal.Tesson 13:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The admonishment was not meant for you, but for Russavia, who filed the original group deletion nomination after a dispute on Singapore Airlines. He has a vendetta against the Little Red Dot, and his group deletion nomination reeks of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I supposedly have a bias against Singapore, because I nominate non-notable hotels (wikitravel material) not only in Singapore, but in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Philippines, UAE, etc and there will be more to come. No vendetta here, just a desire to be rid of non-notable entities and un-encyclopaedic material from WP. If I have a vendetta against Singapore, please explain why I did not nominate Raffles Hotel, Raffles The Plaza, Swissôtel The Stamford, Goodwood Park Hotel, and The Fullerton Singapore; perhaps because these are notable hotels in Singapore? --Russavia 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A simple look at Russavia's contribution history will tell a different story. His pass disagreements against certain Singaporean editors and his strong believe that Singaporean contributors are a result of "arrogant fanboism" has clearly been the guiding force behind many of his recent edits. It is clear, that his entire exercise against hotels in general started with a string of Singaporean establishments. Only with Pascal.Tesson "egging him on", did he proceed to massively nominate hotel articles from around the World, but I suspect it isnt so simple. His repeated claims of nuetrality towards Singapore based on the fact that he has nominated non-Singapore related articles gives me reason to suspect that his actions are a calculated attempt to mask his original intentions or targeting Singapore-related articles. People may lie, but their actions do not.--Huaiwei 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 ::The admonishment was not meant for you, but for [[User:Russavia|Russavia]], who filed the original group deletion nomination after a dispute on [[Singapore Airlines]]. He has a vendetta against the Little Red Dot, and his group deletion nomination reeks of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. --[[User:Hildanknight|J.L.W.S. The Special One]] 13:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 :::I supposedly have a bias against Singapore, because I nominate non-notable hotels (wikitravel material) not only in Singapore, but in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Philippines, UAE, etc and there will be more to come. No vendetta here, just a desire to be rid of non-notable entities and un-encyclopaedic material from WP. If I have a vendetta against Singapore, please explain why I did not nominate [[Raffles Hotel]], [[Raffles The Plaza]], [[Swissôtel The Stamford]], [[Goodwood Park Hotel]], and [[The Fullerton Singapore]]; perhaps because these '''are''' notable hotels in Singapore? --[[User:Russavia|Russavia]] 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
+::::A simple look at Russavia's contribution history will tell a different story. His pass disagreements against certain Singaporean editors and his strong believe that Singaporean contributors are a result of "arrogant fanboism" has clearly been the guiding force behind many of his recent edits. It is clear, that his entire exercise against hotels in general started with a string of Singaporean establishments. Only with Pascal.Tesson "egging him on", did he proceed to massively nominate hotel articles from around the World, but I suspect it isnt so simple. His repeated claims of nuetrality towards Singapore based on the fact that he has nominated non-Singapore related articles gives me reason to suspect that his actions are a calculated attempt to mask his original intentions or targeting Singapore-related articles. People may lie, but their actions do not.--[[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei]] 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)