Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Hotel van Cleef
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was Speedy keep (withdrawn). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Grand Hotel van Cleef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't know what the notability standards of german Wikipedia is but 7 ghits doesn't quite cover it. Delete non notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a few more sources coming up from the above tool but when searcihhgn this morning there is a link with 7 results 2 in german. On this one there is 195, however a reader of German might help because it would seem to have heightened it's potential notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-- I have 31,500 given, and even 194 in news. Even if it were 7, Google search results by themselves aren't grounds for deletion. First article by a new contributor to the English Wikipedia so s/he should have time enough to work on improvements with this discussion open. I removed CSD tag on a subjective call to at least give the editor a fair shot with an article. I will 100% agree that the article stands little chance on its own without sizable improvements, though. To the author, good luck. Datheisen (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--and possibly in a speedy manner. Look at this, for instance, a full-length article in Der Spiegel. Seriously, I think the nominator should consider adding the study German to their list of activities for the Christmas vacation: look at the results of this Google search. An article in the Financial Times Germany, and article in the Schwabische Zeitung, an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung... Hell, consider withdrawing this: you can't win it. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I still don't find it notable, take a look at this search....[[1]]Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in our notability guidelines to say that they should have been covered in recent news. Look earlier than October 2009 and you'll find that there's more than enough to pass WP:GNG. -SpacemanSpiff 04:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I learned something today. I didn't know the google hits were by date. Consider it wqithdrawn my mistake. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries Hell. Thanks for withdrawing, and thanks to Spiff for their comment. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I learned something today. I didn't know the google hits were by date. Consider it wqithdrawn my mistake. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in our notability guidelines to say that they should have been covered in recent news. Look earlier than October 2009 and you'll find that there's more than enough to pass WP:GNG. -SpacemanSpiff 04:08, 28 October 2009 (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.