Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chancellors Hotel & Conference Centre

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. No delete vote Pea ceNT 05:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellors Hotel & Conference Centre

Would have tagged this up as a blatant advertising speedy, but it isn't blatant advertising but rather insidious advertising. Some notablity claim in respect of the building's history, but nevertheless (a) I am not convinced that this building is in the least bit notable on its own (there are plenty of Grade II listed buildings in the UK) and (b)I do feel that this page is simply an advertisment for the hotel. A1octopus 15:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep but remove the commercial tone & establish more notability - Tiswas^(t/c) 15:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as Tiswas. I have tried to tone down some of the commercialism in the article. Whilst I believe that the Firs is certainly notworthy, (for example as the article already states it has been home to a couple of Manchester's most notable "sons"). I dont know a lot about it to add more. Pit-yacker 16:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Because I think that the content is of interest and worthwhile keeping, I therefore oppose deletion. However, the limited scope does make me question its status as an article in its own right, and I would support a merge proposal into a bigger article, such as Fallowfield. -- Fursday 15:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The building appears to have a potentially interesting social history.
Comment I now agree that the building is notable for its history and, since the article is now much less commercial,I withdraw the nomination. I would recommend however that the article be renamed "The Firs" since it is the building that is notable rather than the current users of it. A1octopus 22:32, 14 April 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.