- 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. I'm going to close this per SNOW; no one but the nominator argues for deletion. I'm also going to suggest a bunch of things, since I am a moralist. a. Evil Doctor, please no appeals to manhood--it's sexist. b. PUHLEASE y'all, fight your battles elsewhere or, better yet, don't fight battles at all. c. No, not SPEEDY keep. You ALL should, as long as possible, assume good faith. A may well think of B as stubborn, idiotic, unfamiliar with guidelines, a dumb cheesehead, an illiterate cowherd, but I know (since I know you all) that you know that the other party is not out to disrupt the project. So take it easy. Drmies ( talk) 16:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Grand Hotel Karel V
- Grand Hotel Karel V ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Strange combination of advertising, Grand Restaurant Karel V and Duitse Huis. No need for this combination. The Banner talk 20:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Speedy keep. There are sufficient independent notable sources surrounding this hotel. It's not unusual for a hotel to be built in an interesting building, or to have a good restaurant, but an article covering that seems appropriate. I'm not sure which of the criteria for deletion this is being based on: perhaps you could outline your opposition to the article based on the relevant guidelines? - SchroCat ( talk) 20:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, the hotel is so noteworthy that even the Dutch Wikipedia, its "home" Wikipedia, has no article about it. But that Wikipedia does have articles about
Duitse Huis and
Grand Restaurant Karel V.
The Banner
talk 20:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Could it possibly be that Dutch Wiki isn't as good as Eng Wiki? Given it only has about 20% the number of pages, it's not too surprising. Despite all that, we have lots of articles (and excellent ones too) about other nations that are not on those nations' wikis. I really wouldn't compare the two. Back to the original point: do you have anything to offer based on the relevant policies etc? -
SchroCat (
talk) 20:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- LOL, where is you statistic about the number of people that speak Dutch compared with the number of people that speak English? Are we not talking about 10% or even less?
The Banner
talk 23:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Do you every actually read anything people write? Where on earth have I mentioned Dutch speakers? I have referred to "20% the number of pages". I still note you have not given any reason for deletion based on any of the relevant policies or guidelines. -
SchroCat (
talk) 06:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- You start giving out on the fact that the Dutch Wikipedia is much smaller. What is wrong with it to point out that the number of Dutch speaking people is far less than the number of people who speak English? With a smaller base, it is quite likely that you have less articles. That you confuse article numbers with quality, as you did, is entirely your problem.
The Banner
talk 11:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- So why on earth did you start this mini thread with the inane and inconsequential "fact" that there isn't a page for this on the Dutch wiki page? You raised this meaningless point, and now seem to want to argue about the equally aimless "fact" about the number of Dutch speakers. I'm just don't understand what you are on about here. - SchroCat ( talk) 12:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- You start giving out on the fact that the Dutch Wikipedia is much smaller. What is wrong with it to point out that the number of Dutch speaking people is far less than the number of people who speak English? With a smaller base, it is quite likely that you have less articles. That you confuse article numbers with quality, as you did, is entirely your problem.
The Banner
talk 11:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Do you every actually read anything people write? Where on earth have I mentioned Dutch speakers? I have referred to "20% the number of pages". I still note you have not given any reason for deletion based on any of the relevant policies or guidelines. -
SchroCat (
talk) 06:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- LOL, where is you statistic about the number of people that speak Dutch compared with the number of people that speak English? Are we not talking about 10% or even less?
The Banner
talk 23:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's not exactly a criteria for notability now is it. It has an article on the restaurant and not the hotel and Duis building because like yourself the editor was more interested in Michelin restaurants than hotels. There is more than enough sources to indicate notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Could it possibly be that Dutch Wiki isn't as good as Eng Wiki? Given it only has about 20% the number of pages, it's not too surprising. Despite all that, we have lots of articles (and excellent ones too) about other nations that are not on those nations' wikis. I really wouldn't compare the two. Back to the original point: do you have anything to offer based on the relevant policies etc? -
SchroCat (
talk) 20:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Speedy keep One of the most invalid deletion rationales I've ever seen. Easily meets guidelines as a five-star hotel and well sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Speedy keep. We are an encyclopedia- articles like this are our bed rock -- Clem Rutter ( talk) 20:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The hotel was opened in 1999 and occupies only part of the Duitse Huis complex, which dates from 1348. It is clearly a separate subject from Duitse Huis. It is a very visible five star hotel. Many independent sources discuss it. The hotel is clearly notable. Aymatth2 ( talk) 23:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. There is absolutely no justification for deleting this informative article.-- Ipigott ( talk) 13:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This nom is a ridiculous wase of time, with absolutely no justification at all, and the nominator has not given any reasons for deletion based on the relevant guidelines. I'm going to a SNOW KEEP on this, and ask for it to be closed accordingly. - SchroCat ( talk) 13:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- What do you not understand on "advertising"?
The Banner
talk 15:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- I understand it fully; this article is written in a neutral tone and complies fully with
WP:NOTADVERTISING. What do you consider to be advertising? -
SchroCat (
talk) 15:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Advertising is usually paid. Is this statement meant to imply I have been paid to write the article?
Aymatth2 (
talk) 15:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, advertising is not always paid. Sometimes it happens when somebody is scraping info and forgets that an article should be neutral in style and tone. The Banner talk 15:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nearly the whole part "facilities" for instance. And the many links to hotel guides that offer just the same info. Did I not hear somebody about clutter when using too many sources?
The Banner
talk 15:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- As that is a bland list of the facilities found within the hotel, with no peacock terms (ie. "an excellent suite", "a luxurious centre", etc), I think you are just clutching vainly at straws here. -
SchroCat (
talk) 15:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- It is a list of standard facilities that every 5-ster hotels has. The rating system is not based on quality but on the service-level and facilities offered, including a prescribed minimum size of rooms/suites. And what I qualify as advertising are sentences as The auditorium seats 114 people. There is an unobtrusive sound system in the conference facility and public areas of the hotel. That is non-information, as every auditorium has seats and every conference facility of some size has a sound system.
The Banner
talk 17:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- So pretty much your entire proposal to delete this entire article (well-referenced and about a notable subject) is based on a sentence about seats and a sound system? Good grief!!!!! @
Aymatth2:, would you be able to tweak these two horrifically offending phrases so that no-one will think Wikipedia is a collection of paid stooges for the Dutch tourist board? Then, maybe, we can close this frankly pointless AfD and get back to less pointless activities. -
SchroCat (
talk) 17:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- LOL. No, I just suggest to replace it by
User:The Banner/Workpage13 that is much more neutral in tone and style, has not too much double information with
Duitse Huis en
Grand Restaurant Karel V and does not have the clutter of passing mentions named as sources.
The Banner
talk 18:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- What a shame you've wasted your time on such a pointless exercise. The current article is far superior, and certainly does not need to be replaced by the anaemic piece that tells us so little. -
SchroCat (
talk) 18:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, at least I did something positive and offered an alternative. But it is not up to us to decide on it, that is a community affair.
The Banner
talk 18:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Considering this AfD is a monumentally negative step to have taken, with absolutely no justification, I wouldn't boast about how "constructive" you think you've been. As to the community deciding, so far it seems as if no-one is in agreement with you on this, and it's hardly surprising: there is no justification for the AfD process here. None. Zilch. Nada. Niet een klein beetje. -
SchroCat (
talk) 18:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why don't you do a bit strange: be positive, constructive and cooperative. The only thing you have done so far is protesting, attacking and being negative.
The Banner
talk 19:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm am being constructive: trying to stop a ridiculous and pointless AfD. It's funny you accuse me of "protesting, attacking and being negative", as that is exactly what this hugely pointless (and ridiculously pointy) AfD is, and we all know which protesting, attacking and negative editor stated it off, don't we? -
SchroCat (
talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Try some self-reflection.
The Banner
talk 19:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- ? I am not the one who has started this pointless AfD Banner. Perhaps you should look at why you have nominated for discussion an article about a notable subject that has sufficient independent references from reliable sources. It's certainly not because of the sound system and number of seats: that just needs a tweak, rather than this rather ridiculous process. - SchroCat ( talk) 20:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Try some self-reflection.
The Banner
talk 19:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm am being constructive: trying to stop a ridiculous and pointless AfD. It's funny you accuse me of "protesting, attacking and being negative", as that is exactly what this hugely pointless (and ridiculously pointy) AfD is, and we all know which protesting, attacking and negative editor stated it off, don't we? -
SchroCat (
talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why don't you do a bit strange: be positive, constructive and cooperative. The only thing you have done so far is protesting, attacking and being negative.
The Banner
talk 19:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Considering this AfD is a monumentally negative step to have taken, with absolutely no justification, I wouldn't boast about how "constructive" you think you've been. As to the community deciding, so far it seems as if no-one is in agreement with you on this, and it's hardly surprising: there is no justification for the AfD process here. None. Zilch. Nada. Niet een klein beetje. -
SchroCat (
talk) 18:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, at least I did something positive and offered an alternative. But it is not up to us to decide on it, that is a community affair.
The Banner
talk 18:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- What a shame you've wasted your time on such a pointless exercise. The current article is far superior, and certainly does not need to be replaced by the anaemic piece that tells us so little. -
SchroCat (
talk) 18:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- LOL. No, I just suggest to replace it by
User:The Banner/Workpage13 that is much more neutral in tone and style, has not too much double information with
Duitse Huis en
Grand Restaurant Karel V and does not have the clutter of passing mentions named as sources.
The Banner
talk 18:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- So pretty much your entire proposal to delete this entire article (well-referenced and about a notable subject) is based on a sentence about seats and a sound system? Good grief!!!!! @
Aymatth2:, would you be able to tweak these two horrifically offending phrases so that no-one will think Wikipedia is a collection of paid stooges for the Dutch tourist board? Then, maybe, we can close this frankly pointless AfD and get back to less pointless activities. -
SchroCat (
talk) 17:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- To
User:The Banner's comments on standard facilities, a five star hotel may have ten rooms, no bar, no pool, no sauna, no garden. It is relevant to identify the facilities. 114 seats is not a tiny auditorium, but not huge. There is no better way to indicate the size. The sound system is not just in the conference area, but in all the public spaces. They can play muzak or page people all over the hotel. These are details. Nominating an article on an clearly notable subject is disruptive. I find the implication of paid editing highly offensive. @
User:The Banner, I suggest you withdraw this nomination at once.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 18:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not conform the Dutch rules for hotel classification: (in Dutch) Basisnormen 5 sterren. The Banner talk 19:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ho, stop! I have never said that I had the idea that you were a paid editor. Never.
The Banner
talk 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- @
User:The Banner, read the document you attached. There must be two suites, but otherwise number of rooms is not specified. Bar service (delivery) and minibar are required, but not a bar. Pool, sauna, and for that matter beauty salon, tennis court, terrace etc. are optional, with points added if available, not required. The hotel just has to get 90 points total. Garden is not even mentioned. I assume this is consistent with the European Hotelstars Union
hotel rating scheme. Readers are unlikely to be aware of these schemes. The article should say what facilities are offered. When you said: What do you not understand on "advertising"?, I took that to mean that you thought the article was advertising, e.g. paid editing. That is offensive. Perhaps I am being over-sensitive. Do you consider that the hotel is notable? If so, please withdraw the nomination.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 19:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- 2205. Bar met bediening door personeel in het hotel, met internationaal assortiment dranken.
- Crossing the line into advertising/promo does not mean that I accuse you of paid editing. A slip of the keyboard is far more likely. So I absolutely do not accuse you of paid editing. Absolutely not. I have made an alternative for your article here: User:The Banner/Workpage13. To my opinion an article that is much more neutral in tone and style, has not too much double information with Duitse Huis en Grand Restaurant Karel V and does not have the clutter of passing mentions named as sources. The Banner talk 19:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- @
User:The Banner, when you have withdrawn this AfD nomination you may open a discussion on the article's talk page about replacing the content with your alternative version. First, I ask that you make an unqualified apology here for your slur on my integrity as an editor. Not an excuse, an apology. I ask that no other editors intervene until
User:The Banner has responded here. Thanks,
Aymatth2 (
talk) 00:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see the need for an apology, as I did never accuse you of paid editing, Aymatth2.
- And no, I do not withdraw the nomination as the article in the present form is unfit for Wikipedia. The Banner talk 03:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- @
User:The Banner, read the document you attached. There must be two suites, but otherwise number of rooms is not specified. Bar service (delivery) and minibar are required, but not a bar. Pool, sauna, and for that matter beauty salon, tennis court, terrace etc. are optional, with points added if available, not required. The hotel just has to get 90 points total. Garden is not even mentioned. I assume this is consistent with the European Hotelstars Union
hotel rating scheme. Readers are unlikely to be aware of these schemes. The article should say what facilities are offered. When you said: What do you not understand on "advertising"?, I took that to mean that you thought the article was advertising, e.g. paid editing. That is offensive. Perhaps I am being over-sensitive. Do you consider that the hotel is notable? If so, please withdraw the nomination.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 19:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- It is a list of standard facilities that every 5-ster hotels has. The rating system is not based on quality but on the service-level and facilities offered, including a prescribed minimum size of rooms/suites. And what I qualify as advertising are sentences as The auditorium seats 114 people. There is an unobtrusive sound system in the conference facility and public areas of the hotel. That is non-information, as every auditorium has seats and every conference facility of some size has a sound system.
The Banner
talk 17:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- As that is a bland list of the facilities found within the hotel, with no peacock terms (ie. "an excellent suite", "a luxurious centre", etc), I think you are just clutching vainly at straws here. -
SchroCat (
talk) 15:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Advertising is usually paid. Is this statement meant to imply I have been paid to write the article?
Aymatth2 (
talk) 15:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- I understand it fully; this article is written in a neutral tone and complies fully with
WP:NOTADVERTISING. What do you consider to be advertising? -
SchroCat (
talk) 15:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- If the present hotel article is unfit for wikipedia Banner, so are most of your restaurant stubs. Be a man and withdraw it rather than continuing to act like a petulant child. It doesn't stand a snowball in hell's chance of being deleted and you're embarrassing yourself by insisting that this continues.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- 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.