Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterContinental Miami


 * 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. We've been through three relists and there isn't consensus about how to apply SNGs to this article, let alone the broader contention of SNGs vs GNG (especially in the case of NCORP). At this point people are a little ornery and talking past each other and there are a lot of options on the table (keep, merge, redirect, delete) and I just don't see a consensus to be had. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

InterContinental Miami

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable hotel. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

* Delete: (changed vote, see below) The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. This is a normal hotel, not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy ::  talk  15:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC) (ce, to change vote, see below 21:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC))

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The review notes: "Occupying coveted real estate at the foot of the Miami River and Biscayne Bay downtown, the InterContinental is one of Miami’s original luxury business hotels. With its sprawling lobby, Spanish restaurant and buzzy bar, it also attracts leisure travellers and Miami’s post-work crowd."   Two related articles: Information from the articles:<ol><li>The InterContinental received a $30 million upgrade in 2012.</li><li>It is owned by Strategic Hotels & Resorts.</li><li>When it was built, it first housed a casino.</li><li>It has a new restaurant Toro Toro from the chef Richard Sandoval.</li><li>It has "splashy lighting that can change colors" at its front entrance.</li><li>The Bayfront Park can be seen from its VIP lounge.</li><li>It has two presidential suites. Venus Williams designed both.</li><li>Its Metropolis Suite has a "blown-up copy" of Miami Metropolis, Miami's first newspaper.</li><li>It has "room-darkening shades".</li><li>It has "video screens behind the front desk showing live camera footage of the marina, bay and other nearby areas".</li><li>The renovation started in 2009.</li><li>It has competition from JW Marriott Marquis and Epic Hotel by Kimpton.</li></ol></li> <li> Information from the article: <ol><li>The hotel has over 550 employees.</li><li>It is a 641-room hotel.</li><li>It is 34 stories.</li><li>It is at 100 Chopin Plaza.</li><li>Strategic Hotels & Resorts of Chicago is the hotel's owner.</li><li>The InterContinental Hotels Group has operated the hotel since 1985.</li><li>"For 25 years, InterContinental Miami has been the official home of the popular Orange Drop on New Year's Eve, attracting huge crowds each year. More recently, it's known for the giant images of dancers strutting their moves on two 19-story, 200-foot digital canvases on the building's exterior."</li><li>President Ronald Reagan, President Barack Obama, Sharon Stone, Bernadette Peters and Natalie Cole have visited the hotel.</li></ol></li> <li> Information from the article: <ol><li>The article said the InterContinental Miami was "once the biggest and best upscale hotel in downtown Miami".</li><li>It has 641 rooms.</li><li>It has "welcomed presidents, movie stars, and sports legends over the 30 years since it opened is reinventing itself to the tune of $30 million".</li><li>Its two presidential suites, six executive suites, and club lounge were upgraded by Venus Williams' design firm.</li><li>It added a pan-Latin restaurant called Toro Toro from the chef Richard Sandoval.</li><li>It has a "famous", 70-ton "Spindle" sculpture made by Henry Moore that sits in its "travertine marble lobby".</li><li>It is owned by Strategic Hotels & Resorts.</li><li>Its upgrades took two years of planning.</li><li>The article quotes from a Miami hotel consultant, Scott Brush, saying that the upgrade was required given the competition, "You've got to do something to bring it up. And something more than just repair and replace."</ol></li> <li>Tasker, Fredric. (1982-11-21). "Theodore Gould wants his hotel to equal the Ritz in Paris. New hotel, office tower, a monument to luxury" (pages 1 and 2). Miami Herald. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11. – via Newspapers.com. According to this article, the InterContinental Miami was opened in 1982 as the Pavilion Hotel. The Miami Herald article includes analysis from an "uninvolved hotel expert", Chase Burritt of Laventhol & Horwath, Coral Gables certified public accountants. The article notes: "Burritt pointed out that despite its top-of-the-line luxury, Pavilion must compete for such travelers with downtown's new Hyatt, as well as hotels on Key Biscayne and Coconut Grove. 'We project demand to grow strongly in 1983,' he said, 'but not at such a pace that will allow all the hotels to get the kinds of occupancies they'd like.' In partial concession to that reality, the Pavilion will open with just 200 of its 636 hotel rooms and two of its seven restaurants, phasing in the rest during the next few months."</li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Intercontinental Miami to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC) </li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Some of the above is obviously promotional content, none contains SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Normal local news stories do not support notability. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  11:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I'll keep this short due to the already massive wall of text above that took forever to get through. The hotel receives promotional advertising in some reliable sources. It also receives some local and regional coverage. That does not equate to enough to deem the hotel as notable as per WP:N. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 18:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: InterContinental Miami is located in Miami, Florida. The hotel received international coverage in a detailed review in The Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper. It received multiple articles in the national source USA Today. It received coverage in the regional newspapers the Miami Herald and the Sun-Sentinel and the local newspaper The Miami News. InterContinental Miami was covered over a period of decades in 1982, 1985, 1986, 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2016. There are numerous other articles about the hotel in Newspapers.com (search with current name and search with former name) that I have not listed here. From Notability (organizations and companies): "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." The hotel has received sustained substantial coverage in international, national, and regional sources. This strongly establishes notability according to the guideline. I disagree that the sources are advertising. Many of the sources covered the hotel's financial difficulties which led to its getting sold. Venus Williams and her design firm worked on the hotel's remodel. President Ronald Reagan, President Barack Obama, Sharon Stone, Bernadette Peters, and Natalie Cole have visited the hotel. The Miami Herald called it "once the biggest and best upscale hotel in downtown Miami". A Miami Herald articles included analysis about the hotel from an "uninvolved hotel expert". InterContinental Miami has been the host for over a quarter-century of the Orange Drop on New Year's Eve which is Miami's version of the Times Square Ball Drop and receives substantial media coverage.  Cunard (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply: The above provides no sources to backup their claims. Just a mini wall of text with wikilinks and two search lists. The first wall of text shows mentions in announcements, famous guests, routine events, promos, etc are not SIGCOV, this can be seen from the sources you link to. The wikilinks you place above are not SIGCOV. The search result pages do not show SIGCOV. They do not address the subject directly and indepth. No sources showing the subject meets NBUILD, no sources showing the subject meets ORGCRIT.  // Timothy :: t | c | a  10:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per User:Cunard. For example, this one of the sources provided by Cunard is substantial coverage.  Deletionist objections seem obstinate, inappropriate, like their minds were made up before any research done or arguments made. --Doncram (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * From my reading, that article relies entirely on quotations from company execs and an anonymous source and information provided by the company. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Can you point to any original/independent opinion/analysis/investigation attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject? Perhaps you'd review both our guidelines and the references again and see if you can understand why some !voted for Deletion. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that source is a press release, or equivalent. No it is an article with a reporter's byline, with reporter's and the The Miami News' reputation behind it.  It presents mostly clearly factual stuff, of regular newsworthy variety, and refers to an unnamed source providing context.  Does not appear to be written by the company, at all, as comment implies. --Doncram (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I see below, User:HighKing, that you question assertion of notability, related to meeting wp:NBUILD. The facts of greater than 100 m height, 35 stories, 641 hotel rooms, and maybe also it having been designed by "noted architect Pietro Belluschi" are all assertions of importance.  I happen to have worked on many articles about far smaller, less economically important hotels.
 * Also, hotels are more public than other buildings of their size, have more importance in a way, and have more coverage including ratings and tourist guidebooks and so on, see wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION (essay to which i contributed) for more general view about that.--Doncram (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've very little experience with NBUILD. If you're satisfied it passes NBUILD, fine by me. I'm only looking at it through NCORP guidelines and it doesn't meet those notability guidelines. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Plenty of coverage to satisfy both WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD e.g., , , .--<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 10:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to InterContinental Hotels Group as an alternativve to deletion or Delete as not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. Of the four references listed above: this from Miami News relies entirely on quotations from company executives, an "anonymous source" and information available on the company website. It does not contain and independent opinion/analysis/etc and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. This 2nd clipping also from Miami News is entirely based on an interview with the property developer and fails WP:ORGIND for the same reasons as above. This next also from Miami News is an article on Gould's business troubles and this hotel gets nothing more than a mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally the last is also from Miami News and is a short article on construction progress, also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am judging this by WP:NBUILD not WP:NCORP. It's a notable landmark building and the depth of coverage doesn't need to meet the rigors of WP:CORPDETH, simply that required by WP:SIGCOV i.e. more than a trivial mention but need not be the main topic of the source material. <strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 13:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it passes NBUILD either. It doesn't have the status of cultural or national heritage so that only leaves a commercial building which has some significance. What's its significance exactly? There's no mention of "significance" of any sort in the article so its a little weird that you say that you're evaluating this topic on NBUILD. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for one more time (boldly, given it's a third relist) due to the flawed process associated with a bad NAC close.
 * Keep - The sources by Cunard and asserted by Doncram do demonstrate passing of GNG.Oakshade (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: I have reverted a NAC which fell miles outside the prescribed types of closes allowed. See also associated ANI discussion. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to InterContinental Hotels Group as an alternativve to deletion per HighKing above or Delete per my original comment and above. (swiched vote from Delete to Redirect)  // Timothy :: talk  21:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete -- does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources presented above are rewarmed press releases or routine coverage, such as "Hotel seeks 'skyline' dancers - After a year with the same nameless lady dancing on its building, the InterContinental Miami wants to feature local talent". Name can be optionally redirected to InterContinental Hotels Group. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I have improved this article and added more content and sources. There are more sources out there not added as user:Cunrad has stated. IMO, this is a popular location that deserves a stand alone page and it meets WP:GNG. (Side note: I actually tried to close this one, but made a mistake to close it as KEEP rather than NO CONSENSUS and it was reverted. It was my first time doing a few of these and I didn't realize my mistakes. Don't worry I have stopped doing closings and resists and I will just stick to Voting.)Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The reasoning that you're provided is this is a popular location that deserves a stand alone page and it meets WP:GNG. First off, being a "popular location" is not a reason. Second, "deserves a stand along page" is not a reason. Finally, you say it "meets WP:GNG" whereas relevant SNGs exist such as NCORP and NBUILD so passing GNG is insufficient when an SNG exists. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 11:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:HighKing is dead wrong in saying that wp:GNG does not govern. If a topic meets wp:GNG it can have an article, period.  Other notability guidelines are meant to be helpful in reasoning about likelihood of sources existing, etc. --Doncram (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear, a recent RFC (about to be closed but not closed yet) to decide wording to describe *current* practice says very clearly that the requirements in NCORP are the ones applicable for determining which sources may be used to establish notability when the topic falls under the NCORP SNG criteria. Perhaps you'll now review your !vote seeing as how it is based on an inaccurate understanding of our guidelines? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You conveniently ignored my policy based arguments and pointed out the extra comments I posted. So ignore my extra comments and go with my policy comments. I am also not the only one voting KEEP on this. As I stated there are good arguments made by Cunard, so that is why I voted keep. IMO, it meets WP:GNG Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? You made "policy based" arguments? Can you point them out? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they pointed out it meets wp:GNG, which is policy. HighKing is wrong that wp:GNG is not the most important thing. --Doncram (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem very sure I'm wrong ... and yet ... it seems I'm not. Also, just FYI, GNG is not "policy" - the hint is in the letters in GNG represent. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am sure you're wrong. I am not going to be distracted by some current RFC proposing some change (while quick review doesn't suggest it is anything radical, to me).  Fundamentally, wp:GNG governs.  From the wp:Notability guideline, subject-specific notability guides "are considered shortcuts to meeting the general notability guideline':"These subject-specific notability guidelines are generally derived based on verifiable criteria due to accomplishment or recognition in that field that either in-depth, independent sourcing likely exists for that topic but may take time and effort to locate (such as print works in libraries local to the topic), or that sourcing will likely be written for the topic in the future due to the strength of accomplishment (such as winning a Nobel prize). Thus, we allow for the standalone article on the presumption that meeting the SNG criteria will guarantee the existence or creation of enough coverage to meet GNG."
 * Fine, both GNG and subject-specific notability guidelines are "just" guidelines. I guess there is no "policy" anywhere; "guidelines" (with clear hierarchy that GNG > subject-specific stuff) are the highest level stuff available, and I am glad Expertwikiguy is paying attention there. --Doncram (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, you're still wrong. But hey, I love the way you're not going to be distracted by a lil ol' RfC which is deciding on the wording to replace the words you're referring to because the words you're referring to were added by an admin without consensus. Your notion that all SNGs are "subservient" to the GNG is dead wrong (to use your own words) - I mean, there were SNGs around well before the GNG was even a thought in people's heads. At least we've received clarity that you're not really applying guidelines, just your own (ill-informed) opinion on what you hope is in the guidelines. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to InterContinental Hotels Group per WP:GNG *sources do not address the topic in detail. --Kemalcan (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Except for all the sources that address the topic in detail. --Doncram (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But fail NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * NCORP doesn't matter. Meeting GNG suffices.  HighKing disagrees, I disagree with them.  Anyhow, this is a significant building / public attraction / hotel / geographical feature / feature of internet and offline tourist guides etc.   As I said about some other building complex before, the movement of materials in construction of this was big enough to affect the rotation of the earth, and the building and people in it have measurable effect on the earth's gravitational field in that area. --Doncram (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * NCORP is the applicable guideline for companies/organizations and (surprise!) it does matter. Maybe to you it doesn't, maybe because you don't understand how to apply the guidelines, maybe because it shows how the topic fails. Fine. You do you. Everyone else will follow the actual applicable guidelines. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * NCORP is obviously not the right the guideline - the article does not say "InterContinental Miami is a hotel business operating out of the former Pavillon Hotel building on Miami waterforont" or "the business invest $30 million in upgrading the building". No, it says stuff like "Designed in 1982 by noted architect Pietro Belluschi" and "Height: 366ft" and "The InterContinental as seen from Bayfront Park"...all staetements than can only be applied to buildings and not hotel operating companies.<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 15:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. And that's why has has the "IHG Hotels and Resorts" banner at the bottom listing all of IHG's purportedly "notable" hotels. Sure. And that's why the word "hotel" is interchangable with the word "building" and not at all associated with a commercial profit-making business. Sure.... <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 22:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge. Since there are many InterContinental Hotels, this article should probably be merged into InterContinental. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">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.