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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Aramara[edit]

Casa Aramara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

• Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG Sekuhigh (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)— Sekuhigh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not sure how the nom came to the conclusion that this doesn't meet GNG when it has received significant coverage from independent sources. Even if you ignore the pieces in the article that mention it in passing and have more focus on the celebrities there, there are still articles that are in-depth more about the property. Besides what's already in the article, Architectural Digest and Bravo articles go into detail about this property.[1][2] It looks like it was owned by an awful person and has a lot of vapid celebrities who stay there, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to ignore something that's notable.Oakshade (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree with Oakshade, basically, due to Architectural Digest and other coverage, though we don't have to use negative adjectives about persons who can afford to stay there. It may even be encyclopedically helpful to instruct innkeeper-wannabes what is necessa≈ry to command high rates. :) I would like to see more about the apparently open architecture and what makes the place "work" architecturally appealing, rather than about it being attractive for having WiFi down to the beach and staff of 30 and such, which doesn't seem that special. But it seems notable, whether we completely like the current article or not. --Doncram (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, reluctantly - it does pass our guidelines. I just hatcheted some of the more egregious text. SportingFlyer T·C 03:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep subject passes GNG easily Lightburst (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2019 (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.