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 speedy delete. I think we can safely SNOW close this as a G3 given that everyone agrees it's an obvious hoax ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rothmanhaus[edit]

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

Found this article while searching through orphans. Most likely a hoax, sources are virtually nonexistent and everything else refers back to Wikipedia. It seems to have escaped attention outside of a few tagging edits. Dellavien (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not finding even sources for basic verification, and an incidental role as the site of a death would not in itself provide notability. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a hoax. Most of the hotels in Naumburg are not near the Saale, and none of the few that are matches the description (not to mention that the "wildly popular" ice hockey player has left no mark on Google whatsoever). —Kusma (t·c) 09:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ordinarily a well established hotel with well-known guests would have a chance of meeting notability criteria. However, I can find zero evidence that it even exists! Sionk (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax or joke. It was the first substantial edit by its author, and the only one on a hotel. It appears to be entirely made up, with no sources either present or existing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a run of the mill hotel and possible hoax. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I can't find any evidence to suggest it exists and the tone of the article has persuaded me to speedy it per CSD G3. DrStrauss talk 10:02, 2 October 2017 (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.