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. Of note is that the nominator withdrew in their keep !vote below in the discussion, and the notions regarding source availability in the remaining delete !vote have been countered with the provision of additional sources in the discussion. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four Seasons Hotel (Prague)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that the topic meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Importance is not really asserted. C 679 12:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Template:Four Seasons Hotels there are 33 hotels in this chain that have Wikipedia pages, and the random sample I checked don't have much more than this one, not to mention dozens, if not hundreds, of similar articles about hotels in other chains. It would be odd, then, to single out this one. GoldenRing (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting you commented on that, since a previous batch AfD which included the article for discussion here had the problem that too many were grouped together. C 679 17:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that nom. I suppose it's a difficult one to draw a line on. Some hotels are clearly notable, but which ones is a difficult and sometimes subjective question. I'd say, for instance, that the Ritz, the Midland, the Dorchester, Claridge's, the Savoy and perhaps even Barribault's, despite not existing, would be some notable London hotels; the difficulty is where exactly to draw the line from there down. GoldenRing (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to be a largish (141 room) five-star hotel, no doubt reviewed in many guidebooks. I added a Fodors source and some other. --do ncr am 22:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite my comment above (I was not aware of the history pointed out). I don't think a one-paragraph review in a guidebook should be enough to establish notability; WP:ORG states that consideration should be given to "whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" - there is no indication that this hotel has any particular significance. Also that, "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization," and that such depth of coverage should be considered when assessing notability; it is hard to see how a one-paragraph review "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub" about a hotel. If such reviews are going to establish notability then we've got a lot of work - London alone has over 700 hotels, and I'm guessing most of them have got a review somewhere. GoldenRing (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A large five-star hotel will always have a higher than usual amount of media coverage. Some examples from the UK press: Independent on Sunday (2004); The Times (2001), The Independent (2002)... This Google Books page also indicates repeated coverage in Mladá fronta DNES. Moswento ^talky 09:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nominator, changing !vote as I feel the sources proposed by Moswento satisfy GNG. I have added a couple of those to the article and another one, too. C 679 09:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominator has withdrawn. I'd do a non admin closure, but I don't think I've got the points on the board to get away with that. Dragonfire X (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is eligible for speedy keep, unless GoldenRing changes his vote. Speedy keep is only for when the nominator withdraws and there are no other delete votes. So - no you wouldn't "get away with that"! Moswento ^talky 13:19, 24 April 2014 (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.