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 09:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri-La Hotel, Kuala Lumpur

[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. All hotels have an award or two or twelve. Outside of awards there is nothing notable about this hotel, just the same as having a good review in Zagats doesn't need inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Russavia 18:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the hotel awards it has won. Luke! 02:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Award winning major luxury resort in very popular resort area. --Oakshade 22:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if Conde Nast Traveler awards are so important in the tourism industry - then why are they not discussed at the Conde Nast Traveler article?Ga rr ie 21:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to a list at Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts. Fails WP:N as both references are directory in nature to a single organisation.Ga rr ie 21:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If kept it needs to be merged. No attempt to assert notability. Vegaswikian 07:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When it says "award-winning "... ? Kappa 07:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable as per far as I can see. Harlowraman 18:05, 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.