Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threadneedles Hotel


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Threadneedles Hotel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC) ,3,Threadneedles Hotel,0,0*
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  21:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  21:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  21:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Listed building, so notable per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * comment From what I can tell, only part of the hotel occupies the historic building, and the article largely ignores the building in favor of talking about the usual non-notable hotel amenities and naming/ownership changes. I question whether the hotel inherits notability from the building. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. The building is the bit that's notable. The article can be repurposed with the information about the hotel included. But the fact remains that the building clearly meets notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - listed building Spiderone  10:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Delete Grade II listed buildings are NOT automatically notable, that has generally only been given to Grade II* and Grade I. Closing admin, please disregard the above votes, as there is not and never has been consensus that all 340,000 Grade II buildings are automatically notable – they are not exempt from needing significant coverage. It is a generic hotel with no establishment of notability though independent in-depth sources. Reywas92Talk 22:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community".  The nomination's other assertions are false as the subject clearly passes WP:NBUILD as the place has been "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage".  The claims by others that there are too many such places is contrary to policy as WP:NOTPAPER clearly states that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is clearly your opinion only and calling for the keep votes to be discounted on that basis is arrogant in the extreme. WP:GEOFEAT says differently: Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. I see no exception for Grade II listed buildings in England. Listing most definitely qualifies as "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage" and "protected status on a national level" no matter what the level. Any statement that it doesn't is no more than an opionion unsupported by guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at the listing, though, the Grade II listing is for the Midland Bank building, not the Threadneedles Hotel. I would tend to agree that WP:GEOFEAT would exclude buildings from being automatically notable on the Grade II level as there are absolutely heaps of them, and we can't show that all of them meet WP:GNG - but, that aside, I would argue it's not impossible for the Midland Bank building to be notable, but the Threadneedles Hotel itself is not, the latter should not have its own article, and none of the information in the article would be salvageable in an article on the building. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the hotel isn't notable as a hotel, but given the building it is in is notable per our own guidelines (as I've already pointed out, despite some opinions that they don't cover Grade II, they in fact clearly do as written and no amount of blustering that WP:IDONTLIKEIT will change that), the article should be retained and repurposed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But the article's not about the building, it's about the hotel, and there's no salvageable information about the building in the article. This isn't a deletion discussion about the building, since that article doesn't exist at the moment. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I'm going to have go with delete. The listing level is a problem in itself, be I have to reiterate that the listed structure is only part of the hotel building: Street View shows that most of the hotel is newly constructed, and while it is to my eye harmonious with the older part, it's not notable as a building, and there's no justification of the hotel as such being notable. Mangoe (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The only coverage I could find was a four or five sentence blurb noting how it was the first hotel in the City, so not necessarily unimportant, but I can't find anything else that's not specifically travel-related like I would expect. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: The only claim for notability this building has is that it is a Listed building. That warrants a page in Wikidata, and an entry in Wikivoyage, but I am not convinced it also makes the building notable. WP:NBUILD states "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Such coverage has not been presented here (there are some claims of minor awards/listings but no references have been given for them so far, making this seem like an ad). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So, let me get this straight, you're citing one section of that guideline to support your view, but ignoring the other section that says "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable"! Which would clearly support this article being retained, since listing obviously meets those criteria. Selective or what? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Presumed" doesn't imply that we will have an article on the topic, especially given the fact there are over 300,000 of these buildings all with the same Grade II listing, which unlike Grade I really just means "seek permission before modifying." SportingFlyer  T · C  09:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So, are you claiming that Grade II listing does not fall into the category of "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level"? Because that is blatant nonsense. And if they do fall into that category then they very clearly meet the notability guideline and any argument otherwise is purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "Presumed" doesn't imply that we will have an article on the topic... This is a ridiculous argument. What's the point of a notability guideline then? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It might not - that seems like too inclusive of a SNG, since it would allow for 400,000 articles about English buildings without questioning it. But you're mistaken about the presumption - the presumption means we can take a look at an article and decide it's not notable, even if it meets an SNG. It's not a free ticket. And in this case, when the article is on a business and not a building, the business tore the majority of the building down, and the article doesn't include anything salvageable about the building, delete's not an inappropriate outcome. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.    <li></li> <li></li> </ol>

<ol> <li> The article notes: "With just 70 rooms, this is EC2's first boutique hotel and it takes its claim seriously: the compulsorily chic staff, the profusion of tan leather (a ride in the lift feels like a trip in a Tanner Krolle briefcase), the contemporary 1970s-style design (lots of dark wood, chrome and walls painted the colour of porridge) - all of which conspire to make the initiated guest feel as if she has stumbled into the Sloane Street branch of Joseph. ... It cost the Eton Group (which also owns the Colonnade in Little Venice, West London, and the Academy in the more central Bloomsbury district) Pounds 19 million to refurbish this place and you can smell every last penny."</li> <li> The article notes: "One of those is the boutique five-star Threadneedles Hotel located only a short walk from the tube station past the Royal Exchange and the Lord Mayor of London's HQ. ... The hotel is a former bank found in the shadow of the magnificent Gherkin and is within walking distance of the Bank of England, [a list of other locations], so there is plenty to keep visitors busy. The lobby of the hotel boasts a stained-glassed dome dating back to 1856, harking back to its use as the head office of London, City and Midland Bank. The stylish Bonds Bar attached to the hotel even has the original banking counter. ... Factfile Threadneedles has 74 elegantly designed guest rooms, suites and studios."</li> <li> The article notes: "The entrance to Threadneedles Hotel is so discreet that I almost miss it. Only a metal doorplate gives any indication that this is a hotel. ... Threadneedles is a chic five-star hotel, converted from a Victorian banking hall. The designers have capitalised on the original features while adding modern furniture and soft lighting. The original stained glass hand-painted atrium is the centrepiece of the lounge and we admire it as we sip a glass of champagne. ... If the point of five-star hotels is to leave the real world behind, then Threadneedles succeeds, from the smooth Egyptian cotton sheets to sink into, to aromatherapy bubbles in the bath and delicious food in the restaurant"</li> <li> The article notes: "WHEN a hotel room has its own guest book you know you are somewhere special. So after we deposited our bags in the Loft suite of the Threadneedles Hotel, in London, I took a little peek at its previous occupants. ... The hotel is situated in the capital's financial district within a few minutes' walk of St Paul's Cathedral. ... Classed a 'boutique' hotel, Threadneedles is part of the Eton chain and is a really beautiful building. Above its atrium sits a 19th century glass dome, which the hotel proudly tells us has 'survived two world wars'."</li> <li> The article notes: "Threadneedles Hotel ... This new boutique hotel is minutes away from the Bank of England and used to be the headquarters of the Midland Bank. A contemporary style pervades, giving a tranquil feel. No doubt the bar and restaurant will be a hot spot when it opens in late March. Pricey. Doubles from Pounds 311."</li> </ol>

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Threadneedles Hotel to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * I'm concerned that every single one of those are reviews, which unlike say an academic book review might not be truly independent of the hotel. I've written a few hotel articles recently, and any notable hotel should receive coverage above and beyond reviews - adding information in such as "survived two world wars" would not be independent in the context of the article. I'm finding it difficult to say WP:NORG has been met here based on those sources. (I do appreciate the hatted sources though, cheers.) SportingFlyer  T · C  00:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the sources. Notability (organizations and companies) says: "Product, event, and restaurant reviews (i.e. where author describes personal opinions and experiences) must be handled with great care and diligence. Some types of reviews have a longer history and established traditions (e.g. restaurants, wine, books, movies), while other (e.g. new tech gadgets, travel blogs) are newer and more prone to manipulation by marketing and public relations personnel." It lists three criteria: (1) Be significant, (2) Be independent, and (3) Be reliable. It is my view that The Times review and the Bristol Post review meet these three criteria.<ol><li>Be significant: "Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products." The Times reviewer visited Threadneedles Hotel and received a tour of the room. The article provides broader context and draws comparisons by noting, "the compulsorily chic staff, the profusion of tan leather (a ride in the lift feels like a trip in a Tanner Krolle briefcase), the contemporary 1970s-style design (lots of dark wood, chrome and walls painted the colour of porridge) - all of which conspire to make the initiated guest feel as if she has stumbled into the Sloane Street branch of Joseph". The Bristol Post reviewer visited the Threadneedles Hotel with his partner. The article provides broader context by noting, "The lobby of the hotel boasts a stained-glassed dome dating back to 1856, harking back to its use as the head office of London, City and Midland Bank. The stylish Bonds Bar attached to the hotel even has the original banking counter."</li><li>Be independent: "many reviews are not independent and are, in fact, a type of advertisement and product placement. ... Often, sponsored nature of a review is not disclosed and not immediately apparent. ... Therefore, editors should use reviews only from sources with well established reputation for independence and objectivity. I consider The Times's Stefanie Marsh and the Bristol Post Tom Morris to have an "established reputation for independence and objectivity".</li><li>Be reliable: "the reviews must be published in reliable sources that provide editorial oversight and strive to maintain objectivity". The Times and the Bristol Post are reliable sources.</li></ol>Cunard (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can definitively say a company is notable based on two reviews. As I've noted, a notable hotel should have many available sources apart from reviews discussing its opening, closing, architecture, importance to the community... All you can get from the Marsh review is the cost and room count on construction (a lot of it is "the hotel said..." so its independence is questionable) and all you can really use in the article from the Morris review is the fact the hotel has an atrium and the bar has the original banking counter. I think we're toeing around notability here, but I don't think we're there yet, and I'd like to see other articles on construction or architecture before changing my vote - articles we can actually use to develop the article in a non-promotional way. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep only because it passes WP:NBUILD Blacklisteffort (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE - a peek through sources finds significant coverage, including thse noted by and  reliable tour guides. AfD is not for cleanup. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2020 (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.