Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The St. Regis Bal Harbour

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. So Why 06:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The St. Regis Bal Harbour[edit]

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

Coverage consists of press releases, routine announcements, promotionally worded articles, and a rating of number 136 in USA Today best hotels for 2015. This organization has not received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability per WP:NRV and WP:ORGIN. Has not received non-trivial coverage in mulitple sources independent of the subject; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion per WP:NOTPROMO. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found quite a few online articles either featuring or otherwise nontrivially mentioning this hotel at the Telegraph, the NY Times, Forbes, boston.com, USA Today, and more. While I agree that none of these are reporting anything negative, I wouldn't call them promotional: the content appears to be independent of the hotel, and while it is pretty consistently positive, I would expect (or at least not be terribly surprised by) a relatively new luxury hotel to have at least generally positive reviews. There are also a few other news stories out there as well: [1], [2] for two, in addition to the substantial number of mentions it gets. Cthomas3 (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the above sources provided by Cthomas3 indicate is this topic does indeed fail WP:CORPDEPTH. All of these articles are routine coverage; they are routine announcements describing hotel amenities that may or may not be glamorous or opulent. This is not reporting, it is regurgitating ordinary qualities that all hotels have and, in this instance, what all five star hotels have throughout the world. If information such as this is the only thing available in articles then this is not significant coverage even though it is an array of sources. Non-trivial coverage is emphasized in CORDEPTH, WP:SPIP, GNG, ORG, and so on.

Each of these has at most a few paragraphs of mundane, routine, trivial coverage. These seem to be on par with product placement. Also, it has elements of churnalism, where reduced staff and budgets in our present day causes organizations and reporters to reach for promotional materials sent to them via mail, email, fax machine and so on. There is no shoe leather that is used-up by footwork and interviews. We have to look deeper than these article showing up as reliable sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no relevant encyclopedic content is present in the article at the time of this writing. The article is 100% promo and such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. Wikipedia is not a travel brochure or free means of promotion, so delete. No objection to recreating if can be done with reliable sources. There's no hurry to get to such a state, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reviews and news coverage found by Cthomas3 (talk · contribs), which demonstrate that The St. Regis Bal Harbour passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, luxury hotel widely covered in upscale reliable, secondary sources for its understated, uber posh style. Keep per W:POSH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable hotel in the present and perhaps even more notable for the site's history: as the Morris Lapidus-designed Americana, this was one of the best known Miami Beach hotels in the '50s through the '70s, and thereafter it continued as the Sheraton Bal Harbour until its 2007 demolition.[3] JFK famously stayed there a few days before his assassination.[4] The article would benefit significantly from the addition of a history section. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- still "Delete"; the content is 100% promotional, as in:

In 2016, ARTIC allocated $35 million in order to add a restaurant, three, four-bedroom suites, and a renovated lobby to the St. Regis Bal Harbour resort!

The rest of the article is the same. Such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with K.e.coffman. This kind of content is advertising. Also, notability is not inherited from famous people who stayed at the hotel, besides receiving only passing mention in the article(s).

Per WP:INHERITORG:

An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

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.