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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kowloon Shangri-La (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 18:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable luxury hotel in major economically important city. Both Forbes and The Independent did an extensive pieces on it [1] [2]. Both very reliable sources. --Oakshade 02:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint you but although Forbes and The Independent are reliable sources for news their travel section is just as reliable as Travelocity. The articles you mentioned do not claim any sort of objectivity and the reality is that travel writers are often invited to these luxury hotels and treated extremely well in exchange for a review. In any case, I'm a little bemused that you would call this an extensive piece when it is a simple glowing review about how spacious the rooms are. Pascal.Tesson 19:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Forbes and The Independent are only selectively reliable sources? Is this a new policy? The Independent piece, this one, is even credited to a reporter. Charging that newspaper and journalist Mark Rowe are equivalent to a travel booking service is quite a slanderous statement. If you're going to compare these very reliable sources travel news to another entity, Condé Nast is the more accurate comparison, not to mention non-slanderous. Sorry to disappoint, but most of us trust a major newspaper over a Wikipedia editor. A reliable source is a reliable source. --Oakshade 22:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No attempt to assert notability. c 07:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. Kappa 08:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Shangri-La Hotels. This article provides little if any information worthy of an encyclopedia. Pascal.Tesson 19:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe the hotel is notable, the sources are a bit more independent than Travelocity. Still, the articles' style is a dead giveaway as to their true nature: the absence of critical appraisal (especially in the Forbes article) suggests to me they are not much more than "advertorials" in disguise. If anyone wrote such an article in wikipedia, I have little doubt it will be deleted per WP:SPAM. Ohconfucius 09:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom not notable Harlowraman 18:07, 7 August 2007 (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.