Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramount hotel

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 Snowball keep While the original article that was brought to afd would have probably been deleted, the rewritten version contains many sources, proves notability, and is 100% different than the original; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount hotel

Fails to satisfy WP:N Noetic Sage 02:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Actually, this article is marked as a dab page, but it contains not a single relevant link.Keep per changes made by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk · contribs). --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I would make it a speedy per A1 but it is a disambiguation page, nonetheless only contains one red link and a link to the "official site," and shoule be deleted as soon as possible. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh and the fact that the last edit was over an year ago makes me think that this page is unlikely to ever get expanded to anything more than its current form. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the changes made to the article since the time of its nomination make it fall within the standards for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I speedied it per A3. It had no content aside from the link to the site (the disambig template doesn't automatically make it a disambig, and isn't content; the only other stuff was that one sentence and the AFD template). Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep per rewrite. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 19:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Since the time it was nominated, another editor has added multiple non-trivial references and content. The article as it now exists I believe requires a new nomination and this one should be closed as being now irrelevant as the above discussion no longer applies to the article which now exists. Wjhonson (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it currently stands provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability Standard. Alansohn (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The current revision of the article seems to meet WP:N. matt91486 (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite, several sources have now been added to assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as adequately notable and referenced. Ford MF (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2007 (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.