Deletion of Hotel Rival

Comment: WP:Run-of-the-mill  is an |essay and "''Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Essays (WP:ESSAY)

Comment: The article does not meet  or . The article makes no claim for general notability  or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance . Two sources in article do not have  addressing the subject directly and indepth.  revealed advertising, ,  coverage, and directory style listings. None of the keep votes have offerred any sources or evidence article meets . This is a normal hotel, not an encyclopedic topic. &nbsp;&nbsp;//&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NBUILD||WP:GNG||WP:NBUILD||WP:SIGCOV||WP:BEFORE||WP:ROUTINE||WP:MILL||WP:N)

Comment: We don't need to consider essays, this clearly fails  and . Also, Swedish Wikipedia article is little better. Anyone who claims this is an important and notable hotel should start by citing their sources first. 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NORG||WP:AFDNOTAVOTE)

Comment: I could consider a redirect to the appropriate section of ''Mamma Mia! (film)|Mamma Mia!'' but the hotel is hardly otherwise notable. Knocking un-of-the-mill as an essay does not constitute an argument for notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: per , , and . I DM'd my brother in law, who lives nearby, and told me that it is "famous". (I trust him, because he suggested deleting articles about small political parties and is familiar with Wikipedia's policies.) So I went to Google books, found many sources, and I added a section Hotel_Rival#Reviews. This hotel has been reviewed both broadly (by many sources) and in detail (''The Daily Telegraph'' and TWICE by ''Architectural Digest'') amongst tour guides, travel websites, etc. There's lots of more reviews that I could add, but I'm done now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:SIGCOV||WP:BEFORE)