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. Interesting arguments on both side. It seems that there is sufficient divergence of opinions on hotels that a more specific notability guideline might be useful. I urge participants to begin working on one.Mike Cline (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novotel Nathan Road Kowloon Hong Kong

[edit]

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

This is an advert for a hotel created by user "Novotelkowloon". Article was tagged as speedy delete earlier today and speedy deleted. Article was recreated. Szzuk (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am now also nominating the following Novotel's based upon the suggestion of MelanieN as mentioned below. Afd will need to be relisted to allow sufficient time to debate. They are all adverts. Szzuk (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novotel Plovdiv
Novotel Century Hong Kong
Novotel Clarke Quay Singapore
Novotel Nha Trang

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Luxury hotels generally generate a lot of media coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From the look of the Barnstars on your user page it seems your role on wp is to rescue and recreate speedy deleted articles, some of which shouldn't have been speedy deleted. This is certainly interesting and quite commendable! I've never come across anyone who did this and I certainly don't know how to do it. However I did actually read all of the sources on the page before and after recreation. My opinion hasn't changed, I think its an advert. Szzuk (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In this case, I was trying to add sources to the original article at the time another editor deleted it, which is why I appear to be the creator of this article. I recognize that this hotel is a lot less famous than the Château Frontenac or Claridge's, but my first reaction was that it would probably be possible to find enough coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. There is a role for an article about a hotel which explains what makes a specific hotel distinctive and what its history is without being an advertisement. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Novotel has 400 hotels worldwide. We don't need articles on every one of them. None of the cited sources is sufficient to make this one worthy of note. While we are at it, I suggest that someone (I don't have time) also nominate for deletion Novotel Plovdiv, Novotel Century Hong Kong, Novotel Clarke Quay Singapore, and Novotel Nha Trang, for the same reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will just add them to this afd. Szzuk (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The 4 additional hotels were added to this AFD 5 days after it was opened and the articles were not tagged. If the decision is to "delete" then only Novotel Nathan Road Kowloon Hong Kong should be deleted. The additional article's should be nominated separately.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was working with the logic that they could all be speedy deleted as adverts so it wouldn't be a problem just adding them here. It was just less administrative effort to do this. If procedure requires they all be tagged, that's fine, but someone else can do it. Szzuk (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep luxury hotels are almostalways notable. The only real problem is keeping the article descriptive. Te one nominated here seems ok in this respect. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"luxury hotels are almostalways notable" what guideline says this? is this another case of inventing criteria for WP:GNG and WP:CORP to suit an AfD? LibStar (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all the keep votes are very weak as they provide zero evidence of significant third party coverage as required for WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is plenty of third party coverage for each of these that I've looked at, e.g. [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8] although my guess is that the coverage is at least partially sourced from press releases. If the articles are deleted, it would, in my opinion, obviously be better to redirect to Novotel instead of outright deletion. Pburka (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the first 4 of those links, 3 were press releases and the other a trivial mention. I can't see why the others would be different, but could be wrong. I can't say I understand the keep votes. There are literally tens of thousands of 4 star hotels in this world. It's not even 5 star, why must every 4 or 5 star hotel in the world have a page? Nothing of note seems to have happened at the hotel at all and the article would need to be gutted to stop it looking like an advert. It will be interesting to see what happens! Szzuk (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - sources given not sufficient to pass WP:N.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When we don't require commercial enterprises to have significant coverage in reliable sources, we run the risk of articles that not only contain unverified material, but are susceptible to promotional content. I'm not seeing the significant coverage in reliable sources here and I can't agree with the view that all major hotels (however we define major hotel) are inherently notable. Those that are genuinely "major hotels" will have significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mkativerata and Szzuk. Genuinely historical hotels are notable and easily proven so --- they'll be written about in books, or by newspapers the general public has actually heard of (e.g. not "Hotel News Resource" and "e-Travel Blackboard"). Specific locations of notable hotel chains are not inherently notable themselves, especially if the only coverage they get is from hospitality trade magazines who will pretty much publish any press release verbatim on paper and the web so that they have something to put ads alongside of ... cab (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are over 20 hotels in Hong Kong with wiki pages and whilst some have more info and links than others, it would be a shame to kill them as they are getting high traffic and people clearly like to know something about these hotels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanepateman (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC) — Shanepateman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - no more spammy than most hotel articles. . . Galloping Moses (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2010 (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.