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. JForget 03:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Inn, Townsville[edit]

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

Endorsed prod that was contested without reason, discussion on the talk page or any attempt to improve the article. (The relevant editor has previously removed maintenance tags without resolving the identified problems at this and other articles.[1][2])

Unreferenced article containing several dubious claims that fails to assert notability, other than it's the tallest building in Townsville, Queensland, Australia. At 120m, there are ferris wheels bigger than this. AussieLegend (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The building appears to have become a symbol of the community, according to this claim: "The Sugarshaker is used in many logos like the Townsville Sun or sport posters." It was probably written up in one or more architectural, construction or hotel industry publications when it was first built. - Eastmain (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It was probably written up" doesn't help much. The article was created by one of a pair of editors who have recently been uploading lots of copyrighted images, claiming them as their own, and adding copyrighted text to various articles. Despite this, I haven't been able to use what's in the articles to locate any facts and figures on an authoritative site (this appears to be thye first article they've actually created from scratch) to confirm what was originally added. The other one of the pair has since extensively changed what was originally there and I can't confirm the new figures. If we keep this article, all the unconfirmed figures will have to be removed which will make it a one line, unreferenced stub, something along the lines of "The Holiday Inn is a building in Townsville". --AussieLegend (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It appears that this deletion proposal is based on the article being poor and the other editors refusal to improve it (removing templates when improvement is needed sucks). That is a shame but both the building and the hotel appear to be notable. I would like to see more coverage on the actual building but a Google News search shows that there is coverage. Google Books shows some mentions in travel books, also. I lean towards the general notability guideline being met even though some of the coverage is trivial. Wikipedia:WikiProject Hotels and Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture do not have specific notability guidelines which would have helped but the subject falls under those topics so notability isn't that it is kind of tall (even though being a significant part of that city's skyline could be considered). It looks to be an iconic building in a city but more sources are needed to verify that claim. Someone local who is actually interested in improving the article (it sounds like some weren't playing ball) might be able to see if there is anything mentioned in local printed press and magazines.Cptnono (talk)
The nomination is primarily based on the general lack of notability. Once you get rid of the accommodation directories, which really can't be used to justify notability, otherwise every seedy motel could have an article, there's very little mention of the building anywhere. The article creator included a number of claims and specifications, which were then severely edited by the other major contributor to the article. As I indicated, I haven't been able to find anything to confirm or deny what either of those editors added. Most of their contributions to date have been lifted from various websites so it has been easy to identify the sources through a simple google search. On this building, the search was unsuccessful and, from the tone, it appears they must have had to create this one from scratch, such is the lack of coverage. Even editors who voted "keep" doesn't seem to have been able to find much. The building just isn't notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to say your intent was malicious. I thought it might have been out of frustration, though. I am striking my keep. I still assume there is coverage out there but I am not having any luck finding what I personally feel would be appropriate. The status quo for buildings seems to allow for a stub for such an article but since there isn't a specific guideline to point us in the right direction I can't tell if that is just a previous lack of diligence. I also noticed tham some of the recent coverage was based on one incident taking place at the hotel. I'm still on the fence but am not comfortable whole heartedly supporting. If this article is deleted, I feel that it would take little more coverage wise to meet GNG. A couple write ups on the initial construction, its relation to local ordinances, its iconic status, or similar would help.Cptnono (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see WP:CHAIN. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt appear to be notable not mentioned in the Townsville article either as being of note. MilborneOne (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In regards to WP:CHAIN, it appears to be more than a hotel. In regards to the Wikipeida article, that is a poor basis unless it is spectacular in the assessment scale. I actually came across a PDF on the city's website that referred to it as an icon. It was only a trivial mention though. As I said up above, I ~~am assuming notability on this one but~~ understand a couple solid sources are needed.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, the building does dominate Townsville's skyline, so there's a reasonable chance that it is notable on the basis of coverage in the local media. The building would be utterly unremarkable in a larger city though. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a hotel and it's a funny shape. Not all that notable as far as I'm concerned. Wexcan Talk 08:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Jauerback per WP:CHAIN. Tons of precedent left and right on how these are treated in all sorts of forms and this is an example of why we have that to point to. Even if it's "popular" locally and has a distinct look, those are moot points. Unless it fits into the extremely narrow specs of uniquely artistic or original architecture, I'm not sure how one could even start a talking point to claim notability with literally nothing to work off of other than that it's proven to exist. For completion's sake, I'll say that It's far below the consensus on building height suggesting notability, and "tallest locally" isn't outlined in any way. Though I do respect hard work efforts done in good faith to make a "complete" set of articles for one's subject of interest, Wikipedia doesn't promote notability merely for existing. Importance and notability are entirely different, and a Wikia would be the forum where such concerns are rarely raised. We have lots of comprehensive areas of fine articles for smaller communities, so to the authors I say you have every right to keep your chin up. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Edit forgot my signature for the first time in ages. Sorry![reply]
Delete. I'm not aware of any criteria that this passes notability under. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2010 (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.