Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotels in London


 * 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. W.marsh 14:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hotels in London

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a violation of WP:NOT.  Jonathan  letters to the editor — my work  16:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. :)  Jonathan  letters to the editor — my work  16:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article contains a list, but it ain't solely a directory. --Chapultepec 16:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination — DIEGO  talk 17:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - There clearly is an article to be written about the history of hotels in London and much of the article is a good start. Any shortcomings in the present article – I'm not that keen on the section "List Of Five Star Hotels In London" – can be addressed by editing, but not deletion. Nunquam Dormio 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The problem doesn't end with the articles such as Hotels in London or Hotels in Istanbul. If you enter hotel in the textbox and press search button, you can find numerous articles with the same situation within the search results. The problem is what we're gonna do with the articles containing such lists. I can think of the following:


 * We can leave them as they are (my preference)
 * We can remove the lists and keep the remaining articles
 * We can delete them thoroughly


 * But the hotel lists are not the only lists in Wikipedia. There are lots of articles containing bibliography, filmography or musical album lists. Take Tony Curtis, Jean Paul Sartre or The Rolling Stones discography for instance. Aren't they lists or directories? Or you can review List of playwrights which is exactly a directory. --Chapultepec 18:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

)
 * Conditional Keep if more sources can be found about the general concept of hotels in London rather than individual London hotels and the article is then reformatted around that information. If said information cannot be found during the debate then Delete. Guest9999 18:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Comment - Would you please explain the general concept of hotels in more detail? Shall we give information without citing their names? Additionally, I'm still not certain which lists are allowed and which are not in Wikipedia. --Chapultepec 19:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I'm not really certain about what lists are allowed either. I think that there is a significant difference between what is set out in guidelines and policies and reality, although differring interpretations of the guidelines and policies might mean this is not the case. WP:LIST may be useful to you. Guest9999 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Comment - That's what I try to say. Of course I cannot be sure but to my estimate, at least one fifth of Wikipedia articles contain a list or lists, short or long, which are generally very useful. But keeping the list of an article and removing the list of another one would be a double standard. --Chapultepec 23:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per nom. Keep. Delete list of 5 star hotels. Its a directory.Operating 11:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment how does this list of notable hotels, which link internally only, make it a directory? Its a selected list of 5 star hotels in a city noted for just such hotels. It has a place in the article and is not defined as a directory under the interpretation i understand. Thundernlightning 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's just an embedded list of most notable hotels rather than a directory, just like tens of thousands of others. With this point of view, we should apply the same to all the other articles :) --Chapultepec 18:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment what? Thundernlightning 21:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - What I mean is, according to the above-mentioned point of view, we should remove the lists of all the articles in a similar situation. Of course I was not serious, I just wanted to point out that Operating's suggestion was not much reasonable. --Chapultepec 22:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Majoreditor 02:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Pilotbob 02:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC


 * Keep - one of the worlds major cities with one of the highest densities of 5 star hotels in the world. Few cities can claim the centuries of history surrounding its accommodation than London going back to the coaching inns. The list in question as noted is just one part of an article that sets out the history of hotels in this city. The list itself contains some of the most notable hotels internationally such as the Ritz and the Savoy. Indeed some of these hotels set first across the globe for things such as the first all en-suite hotel (goring). To compare it with the hotels in istanbul article is like comparing apples and oranges because they are both round. Its not just ANOTHER city page. Thundernlightning 08:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Certainly the city is one of the major centers with a high density of hotels in the world, and the article is very informative as well. But we shouldn't turn it into a matter of privilege, this is not the case.
 * As for the deletion reason "as per nom". I think we should add a more detailed explanation as to why we should delete the article. Because, to my mind, the nomination is also a bit problematic since the article is in fact not a directory, but a straight article containing a list just like thousands of others. --Chapultepec 12:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * keep This article is not a list or directory, though it contains a list of notable hotels as a small part of the article. If one objected to lists, that would be an editing question only--embedded lists are allowed in WP. Lists are allowed unless the fail the criteria by being indiscriminate --which means being unselective, and including all the notable and non-notable members of a large category--which is certainly not the case here, or unless the have no definable criteria for inclusion--in this case being an hotel in london is clear enough, and if the subject is notable--which, frankly is clear enough also, or at least i do not see a single argument against it--london hotels have been the subject of hundreds of books and probably thousands of newspaper and magazine articles.  DGG (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * keep The article is informative and does not consist of lists. The whole premise of nominating this article for deletion seemes flawed. 212.126.156.53 11:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - While the article does provide some useful content, the directory does not belong on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a place for advertisment. I suggest that the directory be removed, and the article be renamed to History of Hotels in London or something similar unless disallowed by the manual of style. SmileToday☺(talk to me, My edits) 01:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sorry but I do not agree. Firstly, this is an embedded list rather than a directory, just like in tens of thousands of other articles. Secondly, if only one or several of the 5 star hotels were mentioned in the article, then we could say that it was an advertisement, which is precisely not the case for the moment. If you meant that the mentioning of the hotels in the article is a general advertisement, then I could say that all the lists of filmographies, bibliographies, musical albums etc in myriad articles are also advertisements. So far as I know these embedded lists are allowed in WP and I could not find anything against it in WP specifications. Thanks. --Chapultepec 07:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The list is not a directory imho. It has no contact details, it does not link out to the hotels. It has a place in the article as London is known for its high density of 5 star hotels, a large number of which themselves pass the notability test. Therefore it cannot be right to suggest renaming the article simply to make the list less relevant. May i also point out that even if the article covered only historic hotels many hotels from that list would still be relevant. Thundernlightning 09:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment i see the Istanbul Hotels list nomination was withdrawn and the list embedded in a broader article. On that basis how can the London section be up for deletion? The London notability of both the list and the hotels history is a magnitude greater than that now kept article. Thundernlightning 12:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Certainly, the Istanbul Hotels article should be a precedent. Anyway, here also the argument was demoted to the removal of the embedded list or not. For me the removal of the mentioned list is completely unnecessary and I'm gonna discuss the matter till the end. But after all, despite all the counterarguments, if the result will be the removal of the embedded list, I will apply the same to the other article and seek another solution. --Chapultepec 14:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   -- Gavin Collins 10:43, 26 October 2007 (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.