Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel London - Chelsea


 * 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 delete. This is a close call, but basically the sources listed in the first week were refuted as being unsuitable by too many people during the second. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel London - Chelsea

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is nothing notable about this hotel and it fails the following requirement per WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Wikiwriter700 (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets GNG, sources cover previous business at the same location. I found:
 * Undoubtedly there is plenty more.  Glee anon 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep if and only if the sources found are added to the article, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AFD is not clean-up, it’s bad enough nom has put up ten hotels in one day. Others shouldn’t be expected to also fix the problems that are normal editing. If BEFORE was followed we likely wouldn’t be here.  Glee anon 22:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly there is plenty more.  Glee anon 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep if and only if the sources found are added to the article, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AFD is not clean-up, it’s bad enough nom has put up ten hotels in one day. Others shouldn’t be expected to also fix the problems that are normal editing. If BEFORE was followed we likely wouldn’t be here.  Glee anon 22:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly there is plenty more.  Glee anon 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep if and only if the sources found are added to the article, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AFD is not clean-up, it’s bad enough nom has put up ten hotels in one day. Others shouldn’t be expected to also fix the problems that are normal editing. If BEFORE was followed we likely wouldn’t be here.  Glee anon 22:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly there is plenty more.  Glee anon 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep if and only if the sources found are added to the article, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AFD is not clean-up, it’s bad enough nom has put up ten hotels in one day. Others shouldn’t be expected to also fix the problems that are normal editing. If BEFORE was followed we likely wouldn’t be here.  Glee anon 22:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - meets GNG as above Spiderone  13:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * delete A lot of this is about the sale of the company, not this building, and the rest seems routine travel/local coverage. The Romney Advertiser perhaps comes closest, but its tone is baldly promotional. If the building really is "iconic" then it should be possible to source that from something outside the travel news hothouse. Mangoe (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing notable about this hotel; passing mentions in travel guides etc. and some 'news' of the property sale/rebranding (which is a constant feature of the hotel business) do not add up to significant coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Could be literally any hotel, nothing noteworthy about it. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not literally any hotel. The hotel received significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources when doing a search per WP:BEFORE. The content of the coverage is not of import to GNG. If it meets those requirements then it passes. It also does not have to be added to the article during this AfD in order to prove anything as this process is not for cleaning up articles as also pointed out in BEFORE. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What about it is notable? Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between significance and notability. Notability is about coverage in reliable and verifiable secondary sources only. There are a lot of seemingly insignificant subjects that are included in Wikipedia because they pass WP:GNG.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there aren't any reliable sources other than stuff that would be written about any other hotel in London. Wikipedia is not a registry for every hotel in existence (see WP:DIRECTORY). Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we looking at the same sources? The BBC and TheTimes are definitely two reliable sources. There are others provided above and still others found by doing a BEFORE search. The content of the sources does not matter so long as the subject receives significant coverage and the sources are independent or secondary as opposed to primary. Just because an editor feels it isn't reliable is not good enough to delete an article. When there is a chance to expand the encyclopedia with pertinent and important articles that are relevant to readers/researchers while also maintaining the integrity of neutrality, "IAR" (Ignore All Rules). We don't even have to do that here because it passes GNG but that is in spirit with the future of Wikipedia and where it needs to go. Otherwise we might as well call this experiment Britannica 2. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither the Beeb story nor the one from the Times is about this hotel! Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete A ten-year old, 160 room hotel. Toronto has a few hundred of these... Was it architecturally notable or does it have some LEED-certification awards? At best could be a line in a list of hotels in the area. What makes it stand out from the other hundreds of hotels anywhere else? Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not meet either WP:GNG nor WP:GEOFEAT. Onel 5969  TT me 23:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete this seems like a pretty average local hotel that is just going about it's business. As hotels tend to do. The sourcing is trivial and fails the guidelines. Especially the ones provided in this AfD. Which are mainly just name drops and definitely do not count as in-depth coverage. Plus, like Mangoe said, a few of the sources aren't even about the hotel in the first place. So, this a clear delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. This is a perfectly normal average hotel. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that is WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV.  // Timothy ::  talk  14:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.