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 no consensus. There is some coverage, but the community is divided on how to judge it. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Bangkok[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FeydHuxtable: It is one of 39 in the series. Please describe to me how it is notable, particularly since you completely ignoring the references? If he was a guest then he a WP:COI and reference isn't a toss. scope_creepTalk 12:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it's one of series of 39,000 , if a particular hotel receives "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which as per Cunnard is the case here, then it's notable. This isn't something I'd like to get into a long discussion about - if you need further explanation, please see WP:GNG FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I assumed there would be Thai press, but after spending a decent amount of time on a before search, I can't find anything. I also don't understand Thai, so I'm not going to be very strong with the deletion, but my previous vote was on the assumption Thai language media would be readily available to pass WP:NORG and I haven't been able to find anything. Will take another look if someone does better. I also strongly do not believe that review books lend any notability whatsoever to hotels - their job is to document the hotel's existence, and often times they aren't independent of the source. I've written or worked on a number of hotel articles, and a truly notable hotel will have lots of information written about it other than reviews. SportingFlyer T·C 07:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES just says that "Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses is not encyclopedic." As the page doesn't contain such data, the policy is irrelevant. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That text needs to be removed as promotional, I don't think anyone is arguing for keeping that. SportingFlyer T·C 18:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and you don't think it is affiliate news that has the exact article on another newspaper on the list above - I don't know what this means. If another source picked up this story, that's fine -- it counts as one. I was asking for justification it's an ORGIND problem. Inline responses are typically frowned upon, because it's confusing. If Cunard is doing something wrong, that can be dealt with without confusing the text for the readers. Meh. I'm not terribly interested in debating this one. It seems like a weak delete, but I'm concerned about people throwing around ORGIND and waving away sources without ORGIND actually being a problem. No need for further reply here, I suppose. I'll bring it back up if I see one worth arguing over. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From now on I will do separate comments, if that is helpful. scope_creepTalk 14:39, 21 November 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.