Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyndham Grand İzmir Özdilek

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. Missvain (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wyndham Grand İzmir Özdilek

[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)

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ To be honest I don't know how notable hotels and buildings are, but this one has for some reason multiple sources from Milliyet [1] [2] [3] and one from Sabah [4]. Other sources are from minor publishers (some even look like promo): [5] [6]. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 09:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep per comments under. ~Styyx II ^Talk? 09:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - sources linked above seem to demonstrate some notability Spiderone 15:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak sources. Doesn't meet notability. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has been discussed at length in Turkish, but too tired to actually look through and see if those sources are notable. If I remember I'll edit this vote. SportingFlyer T·C 00:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBUILD. Ther'es neither significant coverage, nor any allegation that the building is notable. Also badly fails my standards for hotels. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it definitely meets 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 11 of "your standarts". ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 16:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV with only one source and barely any locatable info to justify an article. BJackJS talk 17:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't necessarily have to be in the article only, there is more than one source. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 17:57, 4 December 2020 (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.