I can see it both ways. On the one hand, we can find 2 substantial RSs for every substantial building, if we really check all possible newspaper sources, including trade papers. Sooner or later, they'll all be in GoogleNews/googlebooks; at the very least , for every building erected or planned before 1920. If we're going to hold to the GNG, we have several choices A.  use an increasingly stringent definition of what we consider RSs for WLOCAL  such as requiring regional sources, but that wont have any effect in large cities  B.  Make a special provision about LOCAL requiring more than RSs, such as RSs showing notability in particular ways  C.  Abandon or supplement GNG in favor of distinct criteria that would exclude such articles, such as hotel rating level.  D.   Use combination articles   E.  Accept the articles, but require substantial content F.  Simply accept the articles . G Use a WikipediaTwo or WikipediaLocal project as a supplement to Wikipedia.    

The GNG was originally adopted as a restrictive measure. This is no longer the case. The increase in easily available reliable web information has killed it's usefulness this way. It is now a rule that will increasingly work the other way around. Many deletionists   try to  elevate it into what they consider a basic policy on principles that are not specifically exclusionary, but rely on confusion of WP:N with WP:V ; many deletionists and others think that in principle it is the only logically  defensible way of having a guideline I wonder whether they will stick with it when it yields the opposite result to what they really want, or yield a result that contradicts their own intuition?

What I really want in G, above, a supplement that will maintain WP:V and WP:NPOV and other foundation principles, but not have a WP:N barrier. The inclusionists will be able to get in essentially everything, the deletionists will be able to remove a good bit of borderline content from the present Wikipedia. (and, btw, I do not consider Wikia an equivalent, for even if we had one that did not  fail WP:V and WP:NPO, I remain committed to a free encyclopedia, free in  particular from advertising either in the articles or surrounding them.  

But we have to deal with the present structure and the present question . Whatever may have been said elsewhere which I am deliberately not looking atwhat  Himalayan says above makes sense to me: it is a combination of my choices C and E aboverely on ratings level, and work for better content. Covent Garden Hotel is at present a very low quality articlethe AfD seems based on the possibility of there being a better article. The present one does, in my opinion, violate NOT TRAVEL and NOT PROMOTIONAL. I would have had to support keeping it however, because that is fixable.   I would have said weak keep, as Peterkingiron did for the same reason.   '''''' ( talk )