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.. Navou ^banter 02:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles Nest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I believe this article is in violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, additionally with no assertion as to the notability of the subject. Russavia 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Moonriddengirl 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Eagle's Nest, a dab page, which has among other things, Hitler's alpine lodge, probably the best known Eagle's Nest named thing. Carlossuarez46 23:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely the issue of misdirection isn't at stake here. I have no problem with a rename, and changing this specific spelling to a redirect to the disambig. Ingolfson 06:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. "New Zealand's most expensive rental property" is hard to verify and subject to continuous change. An entry in the dab page seems suitable until the property gains some form of more reliable notability.Malathos 05:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep New references show notability above and beyond a normal travel destination (it also makes #7 on CCN money's top 10 world honeymoon destinations) Malathos 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Lonely Planet is not exactly a weak kind of source (for those not familiar with it much, it lists numerous high-priced places). It has also been listed as the most expensive rental property for multiple years. But I will find some other references as well. I also strongly contest that being the most expensive hotel does not assert notability. Why not, please? The "please don't include these" examples given in WP:NOT#TRAVEL are examples of trivial facts. Being the most expensive resort in a whole country is not. Ingolfson 06:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep of improved article - as noted above, I dug in a little deeper, and have now multiple references for the existing claims, as well as two major awards that the resort has received. The only thing I have excised is the actual prices, as these, fair enough, tend to change. Notability and verifiability is, I feel, now well-established, and I would ask all previous editors to reconsider their choice. I am still willing to rename it to Eagles Nest (New Zealand) and have it accessed mainly via the disambig, because as noted, there is neither commercial motive nor intention to misdirect. Its just an article that grew out of a trip to Russel two months ago. Cheers all - Ingolfson 10:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep according to improvements done already. Bearian 20:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-referenced for such a short article, with enough evidence of notability.--Huaiwei 09:03, 1 August 2007 (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.