Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritz Carlton Kuala Lumpur


 * 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 keep. --Core desat 07:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ritz Carlton Kuala Lumpur

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

In violation of WP:NOT, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. All hotels have an award or two or twelve. Outside of awards there is nothing notable about this hotel, just the same as having a good review in Zagats doesn't need inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Russavia 18:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - per awards that it has won. It has, on average, more awards than most average hotel properties. Luke! 00:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Either redirect to parent article or stubify to remove all the spam the article reads so much like a brochure that actually a lot of it is a copyvio from this brochure. This could almost get the boot as blatant advertisement. The nominator's point still stands: the quality of the hotel does not make it a valid encyclopedic topic. If there's nothing to say about the hotel beyond: "it's in Kuala Lumpur" and "it's very luxurious" then we are not a travel guide and this has to go. Pascal.Tesson 03:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to respectfully disagree. This article is not just about a luxurious hotel in Kuala Lumpur. Though the article is about this, it is more about a distinguished hotel in Kuala Lumpur - not any average hotel in KL. This hotel has received several accolades that are well recognized by tourism professionals published by leading tourism/hospitality publications such as Conde Nest, Travel & Leisure, etc. Though copyvio is one area where we can agree, they are unacceptable. At most, re-wording not deletion. Luke! 06:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep one of the difficulties of nominated a whole group of similar articles at the same time is that people tend to get impatient and give the same argument instead of looking at the articles individually, and this one should be kept because of the awards, even if one thinks the others should not.DGG (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As the notability of local business awards--and survey based awards-- was challenged in one of the afds above, I note that this has 18 awards, including 1 each from Bloomberg, and The Independent and 2 from Conde Nast -- I consider at least the first two of those as RSs, and  Conde Nast somewhat reliable, and these make it  notable, the rest adding somewhat.   DGG (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Luxury hotel in major economically important city and per multiple awards as indicated by DGG. --Oakshade 02:13, 31 July 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.