Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Fort Lauderdale

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. H/T AJFU ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Fort Lauderdale

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

Why the page should be deleted Speedy Deletion Gbrinkley (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC) My hotel is the article subject, I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and we need the article to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbrinkley (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now fixed this AFD so it displays correctly. Mattg82 (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand the reason given for deletion. The subject is a hotel which does business with the public, not a private individual. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Nothing notable about the establishment. All the press coverage is local. Rhadow (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. From what I've been able to find so far, this project seems to have received substantial non-local and local coverage for several reasons--its initial and controversial connection to Trump and the failed financing of that project, e.g. Foreign Policy [1], its atypical design by Michael Graves, e.g. The Architect's Newspaper [2], and the kind of coverage you'd typically see for a ritzy project of this size and profile (mainly, although not only, local coverage like this). The third category is perhaps bordering on the run of the mill, but the first two groups seem more distinctive to me, and certainly not limited to local. On balance I think this falls on the notable side of the spectrum. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Technical Speedy keep. The nominee fails to state a reason for deletion. There are other venues for deletion of personal information in Wikipedia and in any case there's no personal information in this article. Furthermore, the many articles on the building in the regional press together meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per above. Jdcomix (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rationale for deletion isn't valid.LM2000 (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Regarding the hotel's ownership, the page does not specify an individual; it only lists a company. Considering the page does not identify the individual owner, I don't see a privacy issue here. There seem to be a good number of sources available which indicate notability and which can be used to expand the hotel's history, which goes back to 2005. AJFU (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2018 (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.