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. postdlf (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Malta[edit]

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

delete and merge back to list of businesses in malta.

Ws just a list of non notable hotels and spamlinks, pared down to bluelinked pages, 2 remain, no need for separate article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to me that you failed to do any due diligence on this list. The hotel that was mentioned at the very top of the list before you removed it gets lots of press coverage and is apparently owned by a significant Malta-based hospitality company. Don't presume that an article failing to exist means it is not notable. Some subjects just don't get as much attention from editors. I sincerely doubt that there are not more notable hotels in a major tourist destination populated by hundreds of thousands of people. The list having hotels without articles may actually compel people to look into those hotels and create articles about the notable ones.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:BEFORE for removing an item from the list. If someone wants to put it on the list, they should either make an article about it, or at least add some refs on the list. having lists with hundreds of items on them, where no proof or assertion of notability is required is a good policy to have a bunch of spam lists. WP:V WP:RS WP:N. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V and WP:N explicitly state that it only requires there be sources available. Claiming WP:BEFORE doesn't apply to the removal of content within an article would only be credible if you weren't citing the removed content in your argument for deleting the article altogether. Found another hotel called Xara Palace that appears to be highly notable and was removed on the basis of there not being an article about it. I have a feeling there are yet more hotels included in the list that were notable and would probably merit their own articles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the person adding content to an article to source it. once removed, if the article is empty, then afd applies. The before is not trans-substantiated. If they are notable and you want to do the research, kudos to you. (However, if you are going to call me out, rather than just saying ones you find that are notable, might also be fair to show how many were not...)Gaijin42 (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the instructions at AfD are pretty explicit. You should try to find sources for the article and try to improve it before nominating it for deletion. Obviously no effort was made on your part to do either of these things. There is no "creator's obligation" absolving you of not doing your own due diligence before nominating an article. I have identified at least two hotels that were removed on the basis of them not being notable, based solely on them not having articles, and can say plainly that they are notable. Do I have to find even more before you will be convinced that this should be kept and improved, rather than deleted?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing about BEFORE and AFD. My point is that there is no BEFORE to remove unsourced material from an article. And once an article is empty, and AFD is appropriate. In fact I probably could have just immediately redirected the article over, but was trying to give some opportunity to the community. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it, there is also a Ta'Cenc hotel that gets some significant international coverage.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perfectly valid list article. The nom seems to be under the false impression that all items in list articles must be blue links to other articles. Completely false. Per WP:STANDALONELISTS, one of the criteria of lists is "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria". In this case, there are at least a couple of items that do pass notability criteria.
Also, it's hard to assume good faith when the nom removes over 4,600 bytes of list content so there are only two items left just before nominating this list article for AfD [1] and then goes on to claim in AfD above the article is "empty." I have restored the article to proper pre-AfD conditions. --Oakshade (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid list and part of a bigger scheme. Lugnuts (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid list, just needs to be cleaned up. James1011R (talk, contribs) 14:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As of this post, the article has been significantly cleaned-up. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 25 March 2012 (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.