Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Montrose Suite Hotel

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. JohnCD (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Le Montrose Suite Hotel[edit]

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

Non-notable hotel, with lack of good published sources. Okay, so Justin Bieber and a few others were spotted there. So they were probably spotted at the local CVS on the corner of Sunset Blvd. (if that really exists). The page also reads a bit promotional, too. Tinton5 (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this with {{notability}} earlier today when discovering the image at Special:ListFiles and tagging it as replaceable fair use. Apart from the lack of an assessment on notability in the article, the second section ("Close to both...") sounds a bit like an advertisement. Probably Delete. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unambiguous advertising of a non-notable hotel. "...the hotel is nestled in a popular section of West Hollywood. It is a private oasis in a city of celebrity." Oh, please. --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has largely been written by Hebs2011 (talk · contribs). The user seems to have had other hotel-related articles deleted as G11. It may be a good idea to check the remaining hotel articles in the user's contributions. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Yes, the article reads like an advertisement. But it does seem to have a degree of notability, even if it is a slight degree. Perhaps this could benefit from rewriting and editing? And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now that I read the article, as it currently stands, it seems less promotional, and cleaned up a bit. I am now leaning towards a possible withdraw, however, I would like to get some more feedback from others to see what they think. Tinton5 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Decent looking article, informative, and it seems notable enough. LogicalCreator —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

"Decent looking article, informative". Hardly grounds for keeping an article. Nazi's look good to some people. Does not mean they should be kept!!! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:PRETTY are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Third-party online sources in article (Men's Health, CN Traveller) are a bit brief. Bobby Brown kicked a security guard there.[1][2] Frommer's review[3], Time Out Guide[4], LA Times mention[5]. The article also mentions a program on Bravo TV without any indication of what it said. Notability is hanging in the balance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gnews only shows passing 1 line mentions. nothing indepth to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 09:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a discussion on the merits of the sources provided, please? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 09:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the sources are either promotional pages or passing mentions/trivial references. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:46, 22 April 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.