Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siegel Suites

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. One two three... 20:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

Siegel Suites

[edit ]

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

Promotional article about a low-rent apartment chain, one of a set of recent articles promoting the activities of The Siegel Group. No evidence of notability apart from half a sentence in an NYT article. Fails WP:N and WP:SPAM

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of the same promotional push for The Siegel Group and are also about non-notable buildings:

andy (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
First off, I'd list these separately, as the outcomes for each type are different. Apartment buildings like the Siegel Suites are not inherently notable, and I would delete or merge that one. In fact, like BLPs, they need to be heavily sourced; otherwise, we'd be overrun with listings of apartment buildings. There has to some historical or cultural significance. I support, in concept, Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks), a failed proposal that remains useful. So we fall back onto WP:GNG and WP:OUTCOMES. Residences such as the Hotel Chelsea or Co-op City, Bronx are notable enough for their own articles. Lesser, but still significant apartment buildings are merged into other articles, for example Sedgwick_Avenue#1520_Sedgwick_Avenue. On the other hand, casinos usually get their own articles, so I'd keep Gold Spike Hotel and Casino. I would delete The Artisan Hotel as just not notable. I'm open to a disussion on its merits. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree that these should be listed separetely. But let's start at Gold Spike. This is a downtown Hotel & Casino that hs been on Wikipedia for years. I did not create the article, but I have tried to expand the article and make it more usable. There has been on the Template:Downtown Las Vegas since the template was created in 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Downtown_Las_Vegas&oldid=25347599). There are over 23,000 hits when you Google "Gold Spike Hotel & Casino", not even counting over variations on the name. There are also LA Times and NY Times both talk about Gold Spike from time to time. Local media covers the Gold Spike quite regularly. I think the Gold Spike is a very easy keep. I created the Siegel Suites article a few months ago. Using Wikipedia as a Guide, there is similiar articles on Budget Suites of America, which is a similiar chain as Siegel Suites. Budget Suites of America is in 3-states with a total of 18 different properties in the chain. Siegel Suites is a chain of 16 properties in 1 state. Budget Suites offers Weekly/Monthly Hotel/Apartment, just like Siegel Suites does. If it was a single hotel/apartment, I would agree that it should be deleted. But as it is a chain of 16 properties, and there are over 300,000 matches when you Google "Siegel Suites", I vote keep. I would like others to help me make this a better article. I only created the Artisan Hotel article last night and haven't had much time to work on it yet. I think that since Las Vegas, Nevada and the metro area's primary industry is tourism, it seems that articles on tourism destinations are notable enough to be mentioned. It has been covered quite a bit in the local media, especially KTNV, the local ABC affiliate. I vote keep for now, with the hope that others will work on this article and improve it.Michaelcox (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
- Added notes, The Artisan Hotel is notable enough to have had two different TV series film episodes at it and one of the casinos in the video game Vegas Stakes is believed to be based on the Gold Spike Hotel and Casino. Both of these seem to add value to the notablitity of these two articles.Michaelcox (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

Comment - that's not how notability works. Otherwise every building, tree or lamppost that ever appeared in a TV or movie scene would be notable. If, on the other hand, an entire series was set in the hotel because of the visual qualities of, say, its decor or location, then you might have a point. andy (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

- - Comment The episode summary of Sin City Diaries episode 1 "Celebrity couple Tommy LaHaita and Erica London check into The Artisan Hotel planning a secret wedding out of sight of the media and paparazzi. However, when someone manages to breach the Hotel’s security and photograph the couple in their room the desperate hotel management turns to Angelica and her concierge staff to manage security and provide the private setting for the couples wedding."

http://www.tv.com/sin-city-diaries/in-capable-hands/episode/1083576/summary.html.

It seems like there has been '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail' WP:N, as noted in the references on the various pages. As of the Current revision of the Artisan hotel article, there are 18 or so unique references on the article, including the New York Times, the LA Times, both Vegas newspapers, local Vegas TV news, etc. Gold Spike has 14 references currently in the article, including LA Times, both Vegas papers, a trade publication, SEC filings, and more. This secondary sources seems to point to Notability under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". Michaelcox (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

Comment It is not true in policy that "In fact, like BLPs, they need to be heavily sourced; otherwise, we'd be overrun with listings of apartment buildings" If a building is notable, it does not matter how many of them there are in Wikipedia because we are NOT PAPER. They need only be sourced enough to show notability. BLPs have some added requirements--but they too do not have to be "heavily" sourced, just that any controversial material in them must be sourced to reliable non-published sources. And thisis the case not in order to keep down the size of Wikipedia , but because unreliable sourcing here can do harm to living individuals. If some significant apartment uildings have ben merged before, that does not mean we have to follow poor decisions made in the past. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
- DGG, you are correct, that was hyperbole. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
Clear Keep on the Gold Spike Hotel and Casino. No question of notability. The Artisan could well be notable. I have considered an article on this in the past but did not think there were sufficient sources to meet WP:N. However, it would appear that there are sufficient sources to justify a Keep. Also the alleged criminal activities at the hotel in 2009 and earlier should be added to the article. I'll point out that a lot of Siegle Suites material has appeared so I wonder if there are WP:COI issues. Even if that is true, the articles are sourced. I don't understand why Siegel Suites is nominated and it should be a speedy keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

Keep Agree with Vegas. Sources exist which prove notability. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:40, 19 April 2010 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Siegel_Suites&oldid=1077607829"