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 verifiability and notablility established with sourcing, advertising and deadend concerns which made the article questionable addressed. Gnangarra 22:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hotels[edit]

Dan Hotels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Tagged as advertising, deadend article is also tagged as needing cleanup, no sourcing. Gnangarra 13:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Gnangarra 02:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete recognising there is a claim in the lead of largest hotel chain in Israel, IMHO this is just a piece of poorly written advertising. Gnangarra 13:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete poorly wriiten advertisement, but still it is an advertisement and last time I checked those weren't allowed on Wikipedia, WP:Advertising. HairyPerry 14:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (G11) — (Lots of spam today) Contains spam spam spam spam baked beans spam and spam. And this is taking into regard that cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion; however, CSD trumps that. MuZemike (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Largest hotel chain, and the list of hotels will indicate this, as it includes the major hotels in Israel,many of which probably do have articles. Primarily descriptive not promotional; and not even all that spammy. CSD does not trump general deletion policy, but is rather one part of it. . In any case CSD11 specifically says it is for articles that cannot be improved by editing. And saying spam 7 times is not more of an argument than saying it once. :) DGG (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability determined the usual way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not sure that the claim that this qualifies for G11 speedy is based on an understanding of what G11 is actually for. This article might be written like an advertizement, but this is not a reason to delete an article about a clearly notable topic. Only stylistic changes are needed to change the tone of this article, not a substantial rewrite. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Part of the nom's reasoning was the current state of the article (deadend/poor formatting), so I took the liberty of doing simple Wikification. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article needs a serious rewrite, but it is notable. I've just added some info and a ref. -- Nudve (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2008 (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.