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 wo nt 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