Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Leading Hotels of the World (2nd nomination)


 * 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 I am a stickler for WP:CORP, and this is a borderline case, but the issues raised in the nom are clearly those of editing not deletion,  and furthermore, the arguments for delete failed to make a convincing case for deletion. The article is clearly a mess, but it does establish notability in the market niche in question. Cerejota (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Leading Hotels of the World
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nominating on behalf of User:Ivyleague100 who originally raised the matter at WP:DRV and I have referred it here. I am neutral. — S Marshall T/C 22:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Stubbify but keep, hopefully with better sourcing. I share the nominator's concern about the marketing tone of the article coupled with poor sourcing. I also suspect there are reasonable sources to be found on this organization - I couldn't find them with a quick google check myself, though someone with hospitality industry expertise might be able to. If that is the case, stubbing and removing the huge list of member properties, leaving just a for-instance reference to 3-4 member hotels that are notable in their own right, is likely a better solution than deletion. Martinp (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC) (amusingly sitting at a desk in one of the member hotels as I write this, and no the brochure on the bedside table is not a good source).
 * Update: This article in a refereed journal, behind a paywall for me, probably is sufficient to write a non marketing speak article on this entity. And given their scale and presence, they probably deserve an article - just rather different than what we have now. Martinp (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I have altered the article by chopping off all the superfluous material. As I said in my edit summary, this article still needs work, but it is a real hotel chain, and I see no reason not to give it an article. --Djohns21 (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure they're an actual hotel chain; I'm going to copy and paste the comment that Ivyleague100 made at DRV below.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Why do you consider this a notable organization????? This company doesn't even own hotels and is not a hotel brand. It's only a marketing organization to which hotels subscribe and this page is simply an advertising exercise for a company that in its own Mission Statement (http://corp.lhw.com/default.aspx?page=94) claims to be 'the most successful luxury hotel sales, marketing, and distribution company in the world.' It doesn't offer any notable content. More importantly, by advertising in Wikipedia the hotels that subscribe to its services, this organization is very simply exploiting Wikipedia, its contributors and its readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivyleague100 (talk • contribs)"


 * Comment I think the article needs to clarify that the subject is a group, not a hotel chain, in a sense. It's a group of hotels that sign up to be promoted by this organization. The organization is still very notable, but it needs to be pointed out better in the article. Silver  seren C 06:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems easy to find satisfactory sources for this such as Tourism marketing: a collaborative approach. Warden (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The 2nd paragraph of the above link confirms this is a marketing, advertising and public relations company. In October 2008 the Wikipedia article on this organization contained details concerning a marketing controversy - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Leading_Hotels_of_the_World&oldid=242426912 (2 October 2008) and in 2009 it contained several facts relating to Trademark proceedings and subsequent court rulings - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Leading_Hotels_of_the_World&oldid=296544849 (15 June 2009). The court rulings relating to this company are interesting, in particular the WIPO decision of 2002 http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0241.html. If this article is kept then these facts should not be omitted. If this organization were listed in any other encyclopedia, details concerning events in this organization's history would be included. Removing negative facts to present only the pretty side of the company's history is misleading and inaccurate. If the article is kept then it should be factual and accurate, otherwise it should be deleted. Ivyleague100 (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There's sometimes an unfortuante assumption that organizations with a publicity-oriented name are inherently either non-notable, or that a publicity-free article cannot be written about them. Both are false, as the sources for this prove.    DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Neutral, independent sources have been supplied and shown. The question is not whether the article is currently advertorial, but whether a neutral article can be written from non-interested sources. The answer to the latter question seems to be yes, so the article can be salvaged. Except for copyvios, BLP violations and vandalism, articles should only be deleted if an article by that title on that topic should not exist, and this hotel organization is not non-notable. I think the idea behind the organization screamed "Promo!" to many; just a hunch. Guideline &amp; Policy Wonk (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. In the expectation that this debate will likely be closed as keep, I have added information - and the reference - from the book that Warden references above. I think we now have a decent slightly-better-than-stub article which is not overly promotional. I have not added the items referred to by Ivyleague100. Their were correctly removed from the article previously as being negative in tone and unreferenced. The 19.84 snafu does not appear to be notable - I have found no mentions of it since the event in question (so the dire warning about who knows what it might lead to appears to have been a false alarm) and a screwed up implementation of a marketing campaign several years ago does not seem worthy of mention - nor does a garden-variety dispute over possession of a web domain. Martinp (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - In its current form, this is a short, neutral article about a notable business organization (founded in 1928!). I added a reference to its profile at Bloomberg Businessweek. --Orlady (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2011 (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.