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. J04n(talk page) 10:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United-21[edit]

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

Non-notable hotel, documented by a spammy and unreferenced article. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, that's why we now have Wikitravel. Biker Biker (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's good enough to avoid being speedied as A7 or G11 (importance/spam), but not much more, and definitely neither neutral nor clearly notable. I see no reason to keep it. Nyttend (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reason to keep. Don't understand, why you want to delete this page. There is a reason to keep this page, as much as I know about this hotel, it is internationally being considered for stay and business conferences just like Oberoi hotel and Taj Hotel...but it is in its developing process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadavnagendra (talk • contribs) 30 March 2013‎
Delete per nominator and Nyttend. Certainly the architecture is non-notable. --ELEKHH^T 21:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: there is likely some sockpuppetry taking place on this article and also Panoramic Group. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corbettreso and Wikimedia Commons admin noticeboard. The sooner these promo articles and sockpuppets are blocked, the better for our encyclopaedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can't speak for WP:EN, as a CU on Commons, I can say that at least five accounts which were

Likely operated by the same person have uploaded images to Commons which appeared in this article, all of which were copyvios. One of those socks is Yadavnagendra, who made an unsigned comment above. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 18:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE most/all of the users involved in editing this article have been blocked on Wikipedia for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corbettreso/Archive). --Biker Biker (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:14, 3 April 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.