Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Royal Hotel London City


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Leonardo Royal Hotel London City

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Proposed deletion in 2010 was rejected because this was one of London's 5-star hotels. It's now under new management with a new name, and may no longer have 5-star status. (The Leonardo website lists their nearby hotel in St Pauls as 5-star but does not say the same of this one ). Lord Belbury (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment No opinion on whether this particular article should be kept as I don't know or care whether it's notable in Wikipedia terms, but don't let "star rating" have any impact on your thinking here. As I explained repeatedly a decade ago when I was trying (and failing) to clear up the hotel spam, may no longer have 5-star status has no relevance for UK hotels. There is no formal UK hotel rating scheme, and any establishment can describe itself with whatever number of stars it likes. Indeed, it's not unusual for the same establishment to use a different star rating to describe itself in marketing materials aimed at different audiences, depending on whether they want to appear luxurious or good value. &#8209; Iridescent 15:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I echo Iridescent. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and if you are choosing subjects according to star ratings you are approaching encyclopaedia article writing entirely wrongly. The right approach is to see how well documented something is and how in-depth that documentation is.  For this hotel, under either name, I could not find anything beyond directory listings, complete with prices, and advertisements.  The sources cited discuss this subject only tangentially, as one out of several examples of a different subject.   Sometimes with this sort of article there is an earlier name and it is the address that is notable for having a documented history of buildings, but Midland House (from the 1960s and existing mainly in yet more business directory listings) is not particularly well documented in the history books either.  The old London Wall is, or was in the time of Midland House at least when some archaeology was done, still preserved at that address, but this would be a bizarre way to present that subject, even as a redirect. Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete Agreed with both the above. Grange City has a number of hits in Google books. Picking up something on it being a place for parties, I think it's Lloyds. But doesn't seem to be anything substantial. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not seem to have generated any reliable, independent coverage, much less significant coverage in same. Rockphed (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2019 (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.