Talk:Hotel Kangerlussuaq

Greenland Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greenland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Greenland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.GreenlandWikipedia:WikiProject GreenlandTemplate:WikiProject GreenlandGreenland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hotels Low‑importance

	Hotels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hotels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the hospitality industry, including hotels, motels, resorts, and destination spas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HotelsWikipedia:WikiProject HotelsTemplate:WikiProject HotelsHotels articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Prod

I don't know how many hotels are former air force barracks, maybe a lot. But that seems to be enough to justify discussion rather than simple death by Prod. Have expanded slightly & added some sourcing StarM 18:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what that means in this context. Feel free to AfD id you want, just saw this as more than PROD StarM 00:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't meant to be snarky -- I just thought that the first sentence was funny. Nothing more meant than that. The answer I would come up with is -- "probably not many, but I'm not sure whether that makes it notable, but perhaps that is a matter one could debate". I wasn't criticizing you in the least; quite the opposite. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, apologies for misunderstanding. I'm not sure whether it establishes notability even if it's the only one. My gut? It may be the property's only claim to fame, but I wish there was more sourcing available to determine notability or lack thereof. StarM 03:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies necessary. Many editors are in fact snarky, so since we don't know each other that was an easy misunderstanding in retrospect. I thought you were uncommonly even-handed and wise in your comments. I agree that it is in a gray area. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]