Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyatt Regency Kathmandu

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. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyatt Regency Kathmandu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing notable about this hotel. Wikieditor600 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In countries like Nepal, the money that can make a five-star hotel is big money. It can raise and fell governments. There are plenty of sources, some of them are available online. I will try and rework the article with some of those. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: I am done. It's the best I could do with sources available online, but I do believe it's quite enough. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedly Keep many sources and looks good article - BeamAlexander (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article is written like advertisment (not that blaming anyone for that but it reflects the sources) and the actual information in the article is trivial coverage that doesnt pass notability standards. Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Adamant1, you can't be serious!! Also, actual information in the article is trivial coverage that doesnt pass notability standards suggests to me that you are evaluating notability of a topic, indeed the quality of coverage it has, from reading the content of the article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but I dont care about your opinion. People calling out voters and saying they voted how they did because are just doing it wrong or are ignorant to the process are a dime dozen on here. Sorry, but not I'm wasting my time on it. Especially in this case. Nothing personal. If you have a specific question about the vote though id be happy to answer it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, I have never written about hotels before, so I would not know what would be encyclopedic about a hotel and what would not. But I seriously doubt it's so much like an advertisement to be deserving of deletion. I have shown there is information about this hotel right from the moment it was conceived, and that it has been involved in national level events. I don't know what would be enough if that's not. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few things that come to mind are if the building has historical significance (like it's in a national registry of historic places) or significant regional event like a mass shooting or something that would have appeal with a broad audience. Otherwise, its to local. I'm not sure what "national level events" your referring to, but hearings about it don't count for notability IMO. Lots of companies go through that kind of thing and NCORP specifically says it's considered trivial. Notability guidelines are stricter for companies then other subjects. I'd add details like numbers of rooms to that list. Things like that are extremely MILL run of the mill. All hotels have rooms. So what? It's like saying a band should have an article because they have a drummer. If that were the standard every individual hotel 6 would have an article. Same goes for the rest of the information in the article. Cool the hotel is a 10 mile walk from the airport. So are a million other hotels in the world. There's nothing notable about that and the only reason to include those types of details is for people who might want to stay there. Which is advertising. As no one except a potential costumer would care how long it takes to walk there from the airport. Seriously, Wikipedia isn't a directory, travel guide, or advertising platform. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Is an advertisement, it is native advertising and it needs to go. I doesn't incorporate those aspects that you would expect see in a notable building, historical foundations, heritage and so on. scope_creep^Talk 00:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article has a reliable source that seems to claim that the hotel's architecture is interesting (Liechty, Mark (21 February 2017). Far Out: Countercultural Seekers and the Tourist Encounter in Nepal. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-42894-9.) If this claim could be expanded on, it might support an argument for keeping. If we did keep the article, it would need drastic pruning: much of it is fluff and the awards section would have to go. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable enough to be mentioned in various books on Nepal outside of travel guides, and with enough coverage on it in news articles. Hzh (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.