695:. 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. --
342:. 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.
654:
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
712:
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
369:, 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.
497:. 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.
394:
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
734:
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.
160:
655:
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!
361:. 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
717:, 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 ...
48:. 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.
206:
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.
154:
726:
793:
599:
687:
755:
200:
704:
487:
463:
115:
306:
634:
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
420:
386:
351:
334:
272:
566:
543:
404:
232:
647:
664:
506:
436:
215:
527:
120:
88:
83:
92:
785:
191:
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.
75:
408:
237:
474:. 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
534:"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?
57:
175:
249:
516:
luxury hotels are almostalways notable. The only real problem is keeping the article descriptive. Te one nominated here seems ok in this respect.
142:
283:
62:
136:
79:
97:
132:
626:
109:
475:
182:
71:
63:
679:
770:
751:
105:
774:
148:
17:
101:
807:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
553:
the keep votes are very weak as they provide zero evidence of significant third party coverage as required for
380:
328:
300:
266:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
614:
722:
620:
623:
808:
789:
400:
227:
36:
592:
683:
766:
747:
718:
714:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
700:
483:
459:
611:
739:
53:
362:
8:
585:
632:
416:
376:
324:
296:
262:
610:. There is plenty of third party coverage for each of these that I've looked at, e.g.
762:
743:
617:
562:
539:
696:
643:
576:
479:
455:
446:
168:
660:
502:
432:
396:
347:
222:
211:
196:
49:
629:
554:
523:
478:
should be deleted. The additional article's should be nominated separately.--
412:
372:
320:
292:
258:
558:
535:
675:
639:
366:
656:
498:
428:
343:
207:
192:
579:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
518:
449:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
635:
801:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
317:. Luxury hotels generally generate a lot of media coverage.
167:
584:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
454:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
811:). No further edits should be made to this page.
784:- no more spammy than most hotel articles. . .
250:list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions
284:list of Business-related deletion discussions
181:
282:: This debate has been included in the
248:: This debate has been included in the
674:- sources given not sufficient to pass
14:
476:Novotel Nathan Road Kowloon Hong Kong
72:Novotel Nathan Road Kowloon Hong Kong
64:Novotel Nathan Road Kowloon Hong Kong
23:
427:I will just add them to this afd.
24:
823:
715:not inherently notable themselves
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
638:instead of outright deletion.
13:
1:
405:Novotel Clarke Quay Singapore
233:Novotel Clarke Quay Singapore
7:
10:
828:
567:12:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
544:12:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
528:05:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
507:12:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
488:00:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
464:00:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
437:16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
421:14:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
411:, for the same reasons. --
387:22:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
352:22:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
335:22:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
307:22:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
273:22:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
216:16:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
201:22:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
401:Novotel Century Hong Kong
228:Novotel Century Hong Kong
804:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
794:14:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
756:14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
727:07:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
705:19:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
688:18:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
665:17:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
648:17:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
600:16:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
58:22:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
775:few or no other edits
777:outside this topic.
44:The result was
778:
759:
742:comment added by
602:
551:Strong delete all
466:
409:Novotel Nha Trang
363:Château Frontenac
309:
287:
275:
253:
238:Novotel Nha Trang
819:
806:
760:
758:
736:
595:
583:
581:
453:
451:
385:
333:
305:
288:
278:
271:
254:
244:
186:
185:
171:
123:
113:
95:
34:
827:
826:
822:
821:
820:
818:
817:
816:
815:
809:deletion review
802:
786:Galloping Moses
737:
593:
574:
444:
397:Novotel Plovdiv
370:
318:
290:
256:
223:Novotel Plovdiv
128:
119:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
825:
814:
813:
797:
796:
779:
729:
707:
690:
668:
667:
651:
650:
604:
603:
582:
571:
570:
569:
547:
546:
531:
530:
510:
509:
491:
490:
468:
467:
452:
441:
440:
439:
424:
423:
389:
356:
355:
354:
311:
310:
276:
241:
240:
235:
230:
225:
219:
218:
189:
188:
125:
121:AfD statistics
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
824:
812:
810:
805:
799:
798:
795:
791:
787:
783:
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
733:
730:
728:
724:
720:
716:
711:
708:
706:
702:
698:
694:
691:
689:
685:
681:
680:70.80.234.196
677:
673:
670:
669:
666:
662:
658:
653:
652:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
630:
627:
624:
621:
618:
615:
612:
609:
606:
605:
601:
598:
596:
589:
588:
580:
578:
573:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
549:
548:
545:
541:
537:
533:
532:
529:
525:
521:
520:
515:
512:
511:
508:
504:
500:
496:
493:
492:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
470:
469:
465:
461:
457:
450:
448:
443:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
425:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
393:
390:
388:
384:
382:
378:
374:
368:
364:
360:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
338:
337:
336:
332:
330:
326:
322:
316:
313:
312:
308:
304:
302:
298:
294:
285:
281:
277:
274:
270:
268:
264:
260:
251:
247:
243:
242:
239:
236:
234:
231:
229:
226:
224:
221:
220:
217:
213:
209:
205:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
122:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
803:
800:
781:
763:Shanepateman
744:Shanepateman
731:
709:
692:
671:
607:
590:
586:
575:
550:
517:
513:
494:
471:
445:
391:
371:
358:
339:
319:
314:
291:
279:
257:
245:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
46:No Consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
773:) has made
738:—Preceding
697:Mkativerata
480:Ron Ritzman
456:Ron Ritzman
155:free images
672:Delete all
367:Claridge's
50:Mike Cline
771:contribs
752:contribs
740:unsigned
577:Relisted
447:Relisted
413:MelanieN
381:contribs
373:Eastmain
329:contribs
321:Eastmain
301:contribs
293:Eastmain
267:contribs
259:Eastmain
116:View log
636:Novotel
559:LibStar
536:LibStar
495:Comment
472:Comment
359:Comment
340:Comment
161:WP refs
149:scholar
89:protect
84:history
710:Delete
693:Delete
640:Pburka
555:WP:GNG
407:, and
392:Delete
133:Google
93:delete
657:Szzuk
524:talk
499:Szzuk
429:Szzuk
344:Szzuk
208:Szzuk
193:Szzuk
176:JSTOR
137:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
790:talk
782:Keep
767:talk
748:talk
732:Keep
723:talk
701:talk
684:talk
676:WP:N
661:talk
644:talk
608:Keep
594:Talk
563:talk
540:talk
514:Keep
503:talk
484:talk
460:talk
433:talk
417:talk
377:talk
348:talk
325:talk
315:Keep
297:talk
280:Note
263:talk
246:Note
212:talk
197:talk
169:FENS
143:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
719:cab
678:.--
519:DGG
365:or
183:TWL
118:•
114:– (
792:)
769:•
761:—
754:)
750:•
725:)
703:)
686:)
663:)
646:)
587:NW
565:)
557:.
542:)
526:)
505:)
486:)
462:)
435:)
419:)
403:,
399:,
379:•
350:)
327:•
299:•
286:.
265:•
252:.
214:)
199:)
163:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
788:(
765:(
746:(
721:(
699:(
682:(
659:(
642:(
631:,
628:,
625:,
622:,
619:,
616:,
613:,
597:)
591:(
561:(
538:(
522:(
501:(
482:(
458:(
431:(
415:(
383:)
375:(
346:(
331:)
323:(
303:)
295:(
289:—
269:)
261:(
255:—
210:(
195:(
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.