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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Grand Central[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG there are no third party reliable sources that cover the subject in a significant manner. it is mentioned in several travel guides, but only to say "it is central but not grand" [1] [2]. . The building is a typical 70's building of no architectural significance. no events of historic or notable value have been recorded as occurring there other than a single human trafficker using it to house 2 of his victims and a church using it as one of many many many many temporary locations. it is being demolished and being replaced by two different buildings so no future notability is possible. BURO nom per contested PROD -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith Keep. The page is a perfectly fine stub-class/start-class article. The hotel is being demolished for refurbishment, and will be reopened by the same owners under a new name (by when a page rename is necessary), so there is "future notability". (It already quite popular in Singapore). More could be included in the page over time (such as the human trafficking or church location subjects the nom have mentioned). Just like any such start-articles, give it time, it will grow. Also, the nom has removed large chunks of content before the mentioned PROD. The original version could be found here Rehman 03:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- it is not a "perfectly fine stub" - a "perfectly fine stub" would have third party sources that talk about it. That is not the case here. It is a perfectly run of the mill hotel. And yes i have removed large chunks of text that were not supported by reliably published sources, which left the unsupportable stub. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (e/c) and it is not going to be the "same hotel" - there are going to be two new hotel properties developed on the site. IF either of the new properties has generates significant content about it in the future after it is built, then an article can be created using the sources that do not exist now.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - and regarding the "events" - i have further clarified their trivial nature in my nomination post. the hotel was named as being used by a single human traficker housing 2 victims - it is not named as some sort of notorious housing location of vice. the church's use of this building as a temporary home was of no particular significance to the church - the source includes the hotel in a list of about 8 other temporary sites that were also used. Trivial passing mentions in both cases - and those were the most significant that I was able to find.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article for the now-closed hotel doesn't offer proof of notability, and a quick search didn't find anything of note; if anyone can find evidence of past notability, please provide it. Future notability won't fly. --Larry (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is more or less an advert sourced to the owning company's website. The only mentions I can see online are listings in travel books and on travel websites. The nominator was quite within their rights to remove this trivial fluff. Sionk (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can't 'demolish for refurbishment'. If you refurbish, the building or whatever stays. If you demolish, it's gone and you may get a new building - or a waste plot if the money runs out... Peridon (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2013 (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.