Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Tjampuhan Hotel - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RFC bot (talk | contribs) at 01:32, 17 November 2009 (Removing Category:Relisted AfD debates). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:32, 17 November 2009 by RFC bot (talk | contribs) (Removing Category:Relisted AfD debates)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Tjampuhan Hotel

Tjampuhan Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CORP. no real third party coverage LibStar (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, hotel is mentioned in literature and should be expanded. Gryffindor (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
please provide evidence of how it meets WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Is WP:CORP the sole criteria for consideration? --Merbabu (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
feel free to show if it meets WP:N or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
See below, and the article now that the Spies connection has been inserted. --Merbabu (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The fact that Walter Spies had a home here does not automatically make it notable (see WP:INHERIT). Here is a gbook link to the book you mentioned: . It shows the first page of the chapter. It certainly looks significant, but our guidelines say we prefer multiple sources. From looking at the book, I suspect more sources exist, and I encourage anyone else that knows of any sources to post them. Jujutacular  03:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
what happened to significant coverage test as per WP:GNG? otherwise we'd be creating billions of articles with one clear source. LibStar (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
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.