- 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 (Non-admin clousure)--114.81.255.40 (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Barclay Hotel (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)
This page is not properly supported by scholarly sources. It provides questionable information on a historic property and is being ranked high by Google without merit. This property is no longer a hotel, but it is being represented as such in a Google search. It is also improperly populating The Rittenhouse Hotel knowledge graph on Google, misdirecting consumers and customers. Hebs2011 (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The cited source [1], and others found through the usual searches vouch for the historical notability of the building. See, e.g., [2][3][4][5][6] None of the other issues mentioned in the nomination are sufficient reasons to delete an article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Wikipedia article is clear that the hotel is no longer operating, so if Google search results give wrong information that is their problem not Wikipedia's. There are many former hotels, churches, club buildings, etc. which are Wikipedia-notable and have articles and Google needs to handle that. I believe they are properly categorized as hotels or whatever they were, and Google could be keying off of that, but it is possible the categorizations should be modified to show as former hotels or whatever, but still those would be within larger hotels category. Notability of the building is clearly asserted in the article and it appears there will be many mentions in historical sources, whether or not those are online. Can tag for more sourcing but there is not any adequate reason here to delete the article. --doncram 15:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is the "Rittenhouse Hotel knowledge graph" mentioned in the nom? An error there in Google would not mean this article should be deleted, but I am curious what you are referring to. Maybe there is some systematic google error that should be reported to Google. --doncram 15:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1900 Rittenhouse Square Apartments Change to Keep per below - The destination article is what this topic is now and that should include history of the Barclay Hotel which in itself has a great deal of significant coverage. It was called "the city's most fashionable hotel" [7] and has had a great deal of significant coverage to it.[8][9][10]--Oakshade (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC) COMMENT - Per Arxiloxos comments below, I can't firm the suggested destination article covers the same building. I thought I read on a couple of websites it is, but now I can't find those websites. But KEEP nonetheless as this is certainly a historic notable hotel and later condo building. --Oakshade (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you confirm if those are the same building? According to the sources I find, The Barclay is at 237 S. 18th Street [11], across the square from the 1900 Rittenhouse Square building. Google Maps: [12] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly a notable building, both architecturally and historically. Take a look at it! Nomination looks a lot like sour grapes from another business. The "misdirection" of "consumers and customers" of the Rittenhouse Hotel is of no concern to us. The Wikipedia description of the Barclay does indeed for some reason (since they have different names and different addresses) appear to have been included on Google above reviews of the Rittenhouse, but that's Google's problem, not ours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2014 (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.