→[[:Grand Hyatt Hong Kong]]: endorse |
|||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Actually, I believe the deletion was entirely appropriate. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Hyatt Hong Kong]] concluded to a lack of notability of the hotel (closed by {{user|Coredesat}}). The sole editor favoring keeping the article was {{user|Kappa}}. He recreated 30 minutes following deletion and three times in the past 24 hours although I asked him to come here first and I think it's best if I do it for him. All three recreations were deleted, once by {{user|Anthony.bradbury}} and twice by myself. I should note that {{user|Android79}} declined the last speedy on grounds that the article was significantly different than the deleted versions. I believe that this is only superficially true: Kappa did add a few references but they are from travel guides or travel sections of newspapers and magazines. I should note once again that newspaper reviews of hotels do not constitute reliable sources in our sense as they are generally written from a voluntarily subjective point of view and more often than not are glowing reviews produced after the writer is invited to the hotel. In Kappa's new version, notability is argued for through notable guests although that argument was contested during the AfD and thus does not address the concerns raised in the AfD. [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] 04:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC) |
Actually, I believe the deletion was entirely appropriate. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Hyatt Hong Kong]] concluded to a lack of notability of the hotel (closed by {{user|Coredesat}}). The sole editor favoring keeping the article was {{user|Kappa}}. He recreated 30 minutes following deletion and three times in the past 24 hours although I asked him to come here first and I think it's best if I do it for him. All three recreations were deleted, once by {{user|Anthony.bradbury}} and twice by myself. I should note that {{user|Android79}} declined the last speedy on grounds that the article was significantly different than the deleted versions. I believe that this is only superficially true: Kappa did add a few references but they are from travel guides or travel sections of newspapers and magazines. I should note once again that newspaper reviews of hotels do not constitute reliable sources in our sense as they are generally written from a voluntarily subjective point of view and more often than not are glowing reviews produced after the writer is invited to the hotel. In Kappa's new version, notability is argued for through notable guests although that argument was contested during the AfD and thus does not address the concerns raised in the AfD. [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] 04:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse all deletions''', appropriate G4s since they did not address any concerns raised in the AFD (hotel reviews from travel guides are not [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], and guests who are [[WP:BIO|notable]] do not confer their notability to wherever they happen to be staying). --[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<font color="#006449">desat</font>]] 05:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse all deletions''', appropriate G4s since they did not address any concerns raised in the AFD (hotel reviews from travel guides are not [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], and guests who are [[WP:BIO|notable]] do not confer their notability to wherever they happen to be staying). --[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<font color="#006449">desat</font>]] 05:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
*:OK you bastards won't even let me see the article and you think this is a fair trial. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 05:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
====[[:Image:Alan johnston button.png]]==== |
====[[:Image:Alan johnston button.png]]==== |
Revision as of 05:25, 4 August 2007
4 August 2007
Grand Hyatt Hong Kong
- Grand Hyatt Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Actually, I believe the deletion was entirely appropriate. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Hyatt Hong Kong concluded to a lack of notability of the hotel (closed by Coredesat (talk · contribs)). The sole editor favoring keeping the article was Kappa (talk · contribs). He recreated 30 minutes following deletion and three times in the past 24 hours although I asked him to come here first and I think it's best if I do it for him. All three recreations were deleted, once by Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs) and twice by myself. I should note that Android79 (talk · contribs) declined the last speedy on grounds that the article was significantly different than the deleted versions. I believe that this is only superficially true: Kappa did add a few references but they are from travel guides or travel sections of newspapers and magazines. I should note once again that newspaper reviews of hotels do not constitute reliable sources in our sense as they are generally written from a voluntarily subjective point of view and more often than not are glowing reviews produced after the writer is invited to the hotel. In Kappa's new version, notability is argued for through notable guests although that argument was contested during the AfD and thus does not address the concerns raised in the AfD. Pascal.Tesson 04:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse all deletions, appropriate G4s since they did not address any concerns raised in the AFD (hotel reviews from travel guides are not reliable sources, and guests who are notable do not confer their notability to wherever they happen to be staying). --Coredesat 05:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK you bastards won't even let me see the article and you think this is a fair trial. Kappa 05:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Alan johnston button.png
- Image:Alan johnston button.png (edit | [[Talk:Image:Alan johnston button.png|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Image was speedy deleted as invalid fair use rationale using Twinkle. Associated talk page similarly deleted using Twinkle. However, there was discussion on the now-deleted talk page and a general agreement between those who discussed that the fair use rationale was valid as the tagger had thought the usage of the image was for something different. Fair-use rationale was not to identify Johnston, which is what it was tagged invalid rationale for. The fair-use rationale, and actual usage of the image, was to show the BBC's efforts to keep Johnston's case in the spotlight.
I did bring this up to the deleting admin, who replied rather uncivilly to it. The talk page which contained this discussion was also inappropriately deleted under CSD G8 but G8 does not apply if the talk page "contains deletion discussion that is not logged elsewhere", as is the case here. The talk page should be undeleted so people can see the discussion for themselves, and then decide on the image ([1]).