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 keep. ♠PMC(talk) 03:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Naniloa Hotel[edit]

Grand Naniloa Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A hotel with no special claim to notability. Despite tagging for better references, none have been forthcoming with the SPA author persistently removing the maintenance templates without providing the requested sources. The two sources that do exist are highly promotional. Searches find all the usual advertisements and booking sites but nothing independent and reliable. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   08:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised, and a bit embarrassed, to have to spend time in Wikipedia to discuss one of the State of Hawaii's second largest city's premier sights/sites (Banyan Drive, Grand Naniloa Hotel, Coconut Island (Hawaii Island) and Queen Liliuokalani Park and Gardens that are all close to each other). By Yoshi Canopus (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I can see, only one of those articles (this one) is at AfD and that because of very poor sourcing, promotional tone and the difficulty of finding RSs to establish notability.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 03:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the Google books search link above to reach:
Fodor's Essential Hawaiibooks.google.com › books
Fodor's Travel Guides - 2018
FOUND INSIDE
Grand Naniloa Hotel–A Doubletree by Hilton. $ HOTEL FAMILY Hilo isn't known for its fancy resort hotels, but 
the recently renovated Grand Naniloa Hotel attempts to remedy that situation in grand fashion. Pros: within 
walking distance of ...
Lonely Planet Hawaii the Big Islandbooks.google.com › books
Lonely Planet, ‎Adam Karlin, ‎Luci Yamamoto - 2017
FOUND INSIDE
Willie K's Gig at the Crown Room LIVE MUSIC ( MAP GOOGLE MAP ; %808-969-3333; 
www.grandnaniloahilo.com/crownroom; 93 Banyan Dr, Grand Naniloa Hotel) A go-to music venue in the '80s, the 
Crown Room at the Grand Naniloa Hotel ...
Insight Guides Explore Hawaii (Travel Guide eBook)books.google.com › books
Insight Guides - 2019
FOUND INSIDE
... Waikoloa; tel: 808-886 1234; www.hiltonwaikoloavillage.com; $$$ Yes, there actually are dolphins in the 
lagoon at this 62-acre (25-hectare) mega-resort, and you can pay to swim with them. Grand Naniloa Hotel Hilo 
93 Banyan Drive, Hilo; ...
etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. --Doncram (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Travel guides and similar publications such as those linked and mentioned above, are not reliable sources. They are often paid to publish content and even when they are not, their opinions are slanted to helping travellers find accommodation. Thus such reviews simply attest to the fact that the Hotel exists and is within a certain prive range but not that they are notable  Velella  Velella Talk   03:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and so have numerous others who have commented about Fodors, Lonely Planet, other reliable travel guide sources, for reason that they tend to discuss what is important/substantial about sites of potential interest to travelers, why they should go see them, etc., and they tend to be very reliable because they are very well-scrutinized and checked and corrected, especially after the first edition...and these are in their 100th or so editions. I believe this will have been covered at wp:RSN many times, too. You apparently have a different view, which is okay, we can have different views, and I probably won't reply further about this point. --Doncram (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What a bizarre statement. "tertiary therefore primary"?!?! Offhand, I can see that travel guides can contain "original research" such as "on the day I visited, the cheesecake was excellent", but in general in their coverage of basic history and importance of places, it is the farthest from original research as can be. I see that wp:TERTIARYUSE is an essay, and I tried to read it but it does not make any sense at all, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just telling you what the essay said, I'm not really concerned with how bizarre it is or not, but it makes sense to me. If that's what you think though, maybe Wikipedia:No original research which is a policy would be better. It says "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event." In other words, exactly the same thing. with travel guides, no where in that I saw in this AfD was anyone saying travel guides should be used only for just obtaining basic factual information. There's more reliable sources to get that information anyway, but looking at the discussion you said "for reason that they tend to discuss what is important/substantial about sites of potential interest to traveler." What is "important/substantial" about a location is relative to the travel guide. That's why they are called "guides." Travel writing is not a science, where each location is put through rigorous testing to make sure it meets some universal standard of what constitutes a substantial or important place. Even the best travel are just glorified opinion columnists and no two travel guides have the exact same opinion of a place. There's zero wrong with that, it just doesn't work here. Especially since they often (or always) receive perks for writing about a place. Which destroys their neutrality. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no two travel guides have the exact same opinion of a place", or put another way "(often,) no two scientists/historians/journalists/writers etc have the exact same opinion of a ...", "Especially since they often (or always) receive perks for writing about a place." or "Especially since they often (or always) receive perks (or salaries/payments/quedos) for writing about ...". Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally true. I don't the user cares though. They hardly ever seem to. Sadly, most of the time sound arguments like ours fall on deaf ears. People usually want what they want, logic and reason be damned. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop with those. There exists plenty of news coverage over the years, this is not a minor family small hotel, it is important in business/social history. --Doncram (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

listings of post cards on Ebay that feature it and the hotels website aren't news sources. At this point your just ref bombing and campaigning. Both of which you shouldn't be doing and won't lead to you getting your way either. So, hopefully you do actually stop with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, it is indeed "on the national register of historic places or something"!!!! The National Registry of the Historic Hotels of America is a legitimate thing, which i didn't know much about, but am now developing a list-article about it. It is an official program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and members must be listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. And this Naniloa Hotel is one of those 266, listed on it in 2016. I don't know how/why it was deemed eligible for listing on the NRHP but was not in fact listed on the NRHP, but that does happen frequently for churches and hotels and other places which just choose not to be listed, perhaps to avoid scrutiny/review upon future renovations. And about hula, not only is the hotel involved in the Merrie Monarch Festival which began in 1963, it actually "hosts this remarkable festival each year earning its nickname as the Home of Hula."(per history of the hotel at HistoricHotels.org). --Doncram (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That and the sources being trivial/unreliable, but mostly the trivial/unreliable thing. There is a proper way to go about this though, without the barnstorming/ref bombing, that usually leads to a better outcome. It's just the nature of the thing. At least that's what I've seen. Is it on the NRHP? It's not listed in National Register of Historic Places listings on the island of Hawaii. Nor the actual NRHP site, or any other site that I can find. So, I'm pretty sure your wrong about that. Otherwise, I'd like to see a citation for it (the historichotels.org site has zero connection to the NRHP). --Adamant1 (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to take a deep breath and actually spend some time reviewing and researching what your looking through, and compare it to the guidelines in WP:N to be it fits before you post it here. Otherwise, it's just throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks, and none of it will because your actually throwing sand, dry sand. Lots and lots of dry sand. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not wrong. Um, I said it is eligible for, but not listed on the NRHP, while it was listed in 2016 on something like it, the NRHHA, which I said is a program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Every listing of which I am pretty sure is going to be Wikipedia-notable, as they are all historic and recognized for being historically authentic. As I develop about the NRHHA i think i am going to find an existing article for most, but in some cases I have to start one, such as for Strater Hotel in Durango, Colorado where I divided it out of a historic district article just now. The Naniloa is in pretty awesome company: The Broadmoor, Moana Hotel, The Fairmont Copley Plaza Hotel, etc. --Doncram (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automatic Wikipedia notability based on the National Trust for Historic Preservation's opinion of what is historically significant is a hard nope. Their a private organization and them recognizing something as "historic" would be on the same level as a mid/lower tier, hardly deserving of notability, award. Which by no means do those guarantee anything notability wise. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2020 (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.