Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Leading Hotels of the World (3rd nomination)

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. RL0919 (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Leading Hotels of the World[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This has been to AfD twice before. I cannot find coverage that is not promotional. Tacyarg (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs a complete overhaul so that it meets NPV guidelines; it definitely comes across as promotional. A found some third-party content, and many of their member hotels are renowned. [U.S. News rated their loyatly program as #10], [Luxury Travel Advisor interviewed the CEO], and it appears that membership into the group is exclusive enough that becoming a member is perceived as a level of prestige by multiple travel publications (Luxury Travel, Town & Country, and Lodging Magazine), and a bunch of travel sites. Orville1974 (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The last discussion at AfD was a Keep and this re-nomination has nothing new to say. It seems quite easy to find sources for this organisation such as this. Andrew D. (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't speedy keep Andrew's !vote above is disruptive and shouldn't be allowed go without comment. The last nomination was eight years ago, and consensus can change. The current nominator's argument is compelling, and the article as is now is primary-sourced garbage, so pending evidence that it has the potential to ever become anything better I'd have to say, if I must explicitly express any opinion, weak TNT delete. Orville1974's point makes a bit of sense, but Their loyatly program was ranked at #10 by U.S. News. is not enough to fix the article at this point (an interview with the CEO is a primary source; the fact of the CEO having been interviewed might indicate theoretical notability, but the interview itself doesn't help us build an NPOV article). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since AFDStats is likely to pick up the above as me actively !voting delete, I should say that I don't feel strongly enough about this to actively support deletion. That's why I said if I must. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline. It would be especially disruptive in this case because the edit history for this article is especially deep and useful, going back over ten years. The article was better in the past, having been expanded by reputable editors such as Northamerica1000 and Dr. Blofeld. But this content was disrupted by other editors such as Jytdog. Perhaps now that they are banned from Wikipedia, we can restore and build on that previous content. I myself am interested to find that the organisation started as a branch of the Savoy Hotel, back in the 1920s. I used to work next door to that hotel in the Strand and so know it well. I can assist in development of the topic once we get this disruptive nomination out of the way. Andrew D. (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, you've been called out for grave-dancing in the past, and if you keep it up you really need to be sanctioned. That's hopefully the last I'll have to say on the matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a particularly cheap shot considering that Jytdog wasn't banned for his article work. He got banned for contacting another editor off-wiki to threaten them. This is something Davidson himself has done, but of course only some people face consequences for their actions. The hypocrisy seems endless. Reyk _YO! 10:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Andrew was apparently badmouthing me off-wiki to one of his buddies a few weeks ago. Not quite the same thing, but I'm just posting this here in case anyone tries to place disproportionate emphasis on the (irrelevant) fact that the above incident took place eleven years ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if an AfD a decade ago is grounds for a speedy keep vote... Reyk _YO! 11:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus fuck. I looked through the above ANI thread, and man... how was Andrew not blocked forever for that mess so that he couldn't edit at all, let alone continuing to cause disruption like he is here more than a decade later? Speaking as a survivor of the "I'll tell your boss" kind of harassment he was apparently engaged in (as well as the related "you got me blocked, so I did tell your boss" kind of harassment), I can say the above is much sicker than anything Jytdog was found guilty of. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per WP:TNT. There may possibly be a notable, neutral article to be written on this topic, but this is not it and the content is so terrible that keeping any of it around would probably obstruct attempts to write a decent article. Reyk _YO! 10:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ALL company articles are ripe for promotion (some out of arrogance and some out of ignorance). I removed the promotion and added sources other than the company website. In fact, there was some copyvio sitting there which matched the company website (now removed). Finding references that are in-depth can be difficult as there are many general announcements associated with the name, but I was able to find some through Newspapers.com and Google Books which meet criteria for WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was horribly promotional when this AfD started. It has since been heavily trimmed and the residue referenced, and now meets our standards. Edwardx (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per the cleanup that Edwardx referred to. Subject is GNG. Lubbad85 (☎) 01:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Promotional stuff gone, article passes the notability guidelines, no reason to delete. 05:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep There are more than two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability (not all of them in the article itself, but a Google Books search turns up more than 2). Topic passes GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:07, 1 June 2019 (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.