Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Swazi Sun 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 keep. Closing this as keep due to consensus amongst the participants. I feel that a third re-list would not generate further discussion. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Swazi Sun Hotel

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

No proof this hotel is notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added ~~two~~ three references regarding its history as well as the regional and economic importance. These sources were easily available and I hope the nominator will follow WP:BEFORE next time. I would expect that an article on a "major entertainment complex" in a Western country that lacked inline citations would be expanded, not nominated for deletion. We should be aware of Wikipedia's systematic bias.--TM 18:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LexisNexis search reveals a few hits but NewsBank which has more African content has over 600 hits (when "golf" is excluded, there are 200). Took me a while to get through all of those, and the vast majority are marginal mentions, but notability is clear: for example, this is where the current king's coronation was announced to the press, it was a key integrated resort during Apartheid (as opposed to the notorious 'ain't gonna play Sun City' about its cousin hotel), and this is the hotel where international organizations and conferences meet at when they are in the country. Keep. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:47, 4 December 2016 (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.