Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Lite Motel

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 no consensus. There is no rough consensus to delete. Sourcing is still a concern, however, and will probably need to be improved to avoid another nomination in the future. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star Lite Motel

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

Non-notable lodging establishment that does not appear to have any architectural landmark status or colorful history. Google searching turns up nothing to confirm notability. Joal Beal (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Motel was known under different name, (Charley's Motel) and it is also now known under Starlite Motel. Motel neon sign design have designated architectural importance, i will add much more sources. It is under construction now. --Tadija^speaks 13:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources. Also, there are numerous guest impresion all over the web. It's not about Charley, it is about Contemporary Motel. --Tadija^speaks

Customer reviews, blogs, and photographs don't constitute reliable sources, and the mentions in Motel America and in the obituary of a former owner are hardly "significant coverage". Deor (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it is clear that article was created few minutes before tagging for delete it is clear that it is work in progress. It is far from non-notable, i have no time now to add more sources. Articles with {{underconstruction}} tag should not be deleted until article is finished, as it is not attack page, or something like that. Also, as old and specific building, important in that part of Minnesota, it is better to use some way of preserving appropriate content. As far as i know, deleting should be last solution, not first. --Tadija^speaks 19:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence of substantive treatment in reliable, independent sources for either the Star Lite or the Charley's name. Does not appear to satisfy the requirements of the GNG. Deor (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It´s still being expanded, so we should give him a chance and vote on this when is finished. In the meantime, the involved editors should work on it to demonstrate his notability. FkpCascais (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage is scant, and not enough to establish notability. The claim of architecural importance of the sign is not substantiated. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further research needed. See the article's Talk Page for my position. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are sources on this motel. Without these sources, none of these writers would have known anything about it. Dew Kane (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dew Kane. Athenean (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC) - stricken as a sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guildenrich -- Whpq (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no significant coverage in secondary sources. The current references are passing mentions at best and blogs are not consider reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:32, 29 May 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.