Wikipedia talk:Notability (hotels)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given the numerous recent debates on proposed deletions of Wikipedia articles concerning individual hotels (see for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterContinental Belgrade), I thought it would be nice to have some discussion on possible guidelines. The idea is to avoid advertisements and tourist information while keeping the entries that have sufficient content (or potential) for a truly encyclopedic value. Comments and suggestions would be very welcome. Pascal.Tesson 20:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Chains 2 Comment 3 Hotel Ratings 4 I like this 5 Criterion 3 6 In general 7 Version 2.0 8 Skyscraper 9 Ambiguity 10 Limited? 11 Five star hotels 12 Comment 13 Notable Artworks or Interior Design

[edit] Chains

I think some guidelines on hotel chains may also be helpful. --Burgwerworldz 09:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

This guide is very useful and helpful, thanks. Maybe some that contain information that look like advertisements could be re-written a bit, so it would be in a more encyclopedic format. Regards, --Krytan talk 20:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hotel Ratings

I was wondering how many hotels actually have a 5 Star Rating. I think it's like less than 10%. The criteria of at least a 5 Star Rating may be too extreme, in my opinion. I think 4 star should be the cutoff.--Summonmaster13 01:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC) The ever reliable wikipedia mentions here that there is actually no real standards as to what is a 5-star hotel. This is why I'm actually proposing that the star-rating of a hotel should not be used as sole indication of notability. Pascal.Tesson 02:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can include or exclude a hotel based on its stars. That's rather elitist (if it's chique or expensive, it's worthy of inclusion?) and no indication of notability. I think the other resaons are very well put, and many 5-star hotels will fit one of these. However, if you are only luxurious but not otherwise noteworthy, then you shouldn't be included. Fram 19:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that stars in themselves are unverifiable. I do undertand the necessity, though, to avoid the matter being redundantly brought up in discussion. It deserves a note to allow those whom are unfamiliar with issues of importance to be made aware that stars haven't much meaning. Ste4k 07:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind that the criteria for star ratings differ highly depending on country, it may be a government department that decides in one country, whilst another might be an independant body. It's not an equal rating system and often suffers from political pressure. In countries where multiple star rating groups exist, the hotel can simply advertise the highest awarded. Ticksoft 14:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I like this

This looks really good and comprehensive to me. I support it in its current form. Grandmasterka 06:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criterion 3

"The hotel hosts a major and recurring international meeting."

This is a good idea, but it's terms are very ambiguous. The clause "international meeting" needs to be more specific. The meeting itself needs to be notable in the first place. The word "major" should also in some fashion refer to the underlying relationship of notability. The statement might also require a standard of time. If only two meetings are held and the venue changed, would the first hotel gain or lose notability? Ste4k 07:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'll try to think about it. I would actually have liked to have an example but these seem hard to come by. For instance, there is a hotel (but I can't remember which) that has an article and is the host to a major golf tournament every year. Personnaly, I find this to be a rather weak indication of notability but for the sake of consensus it is probably best to include it. Anyway, I'll try to rewrite this point to make it clearer as you suggested. Pascal.Tesson 18:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this criterion should be eliminated. Hosting a meeting or golf tournament doesn't make a hotel notable in its own right. If the meeting (or golf tournament) is that important, it will have its own article, and the hotel can be mentioned in that article. Film festival? Not unless it's Cannes or something like that. There are dozens of small film festivals in my city every year and it's sort of conceivable that some of them could qualify as notable, but that doesn't make their hotels notable. Actually, big events like Cannes probably use multiple hotels. Phr (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In general

It should be pointed out somewhere in general that the idea of notability for a hotel comes not from the matter of the hotel's ability to be competitive in the market, but rather that some outside event has affected the hotel itself in some way that gives or gave a particular hotel's name, rather than it's owners, a significantly increased amount of publicity. Ste4k 07:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Examples of what makes a hotel notable may be making it easier to discuss. The Amsterdam Hilton was the decor of the bed-in of John Lennon and Yoko Ono: is that enough to give it notability (I would say yes, though marginally: it doesn't have an article yet). When you then read that Dutch singer Herman Brood committed suicide by jumping off the same hotel, that would (for me) turn it into a definitive yes. On the other hand, the Hilton Athens, which does have an article, seems non notable to me. Then the Great Western Hotel, London: it is notable, as being the main facade of Paddington, and being built by a notable architect. But the rest of the article is an advertisement, and should be removed. Then we have the Atlanta Biltmore Hotel, which has (in the article at least) nothing that makes it notable. Delete! On the other hand, the New York Biltmore Hotel was the location of the Biltmore Conference, and so it is notable. Fram 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree about the need for detailed examples, I would respectfully point out that the Atlanta Biltmore Hotel is actually recognized by the US National Parks Department as notable because of its historic importance (see link in the article). The Hilton Athens article is much more borderline non-notable. It probably makes sense to also add in the guidelines something to the effect that an article about a hotel, even a notable one, should not contain information such as services provided to guests, number of rooms, rates and so forth so that we can deter spam. Pascal.Tesson 19:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As for the Atlanta hotel, I hadn't looked at the link, only at the text, my bad. Oh, and no need to be respectful ;-) Fram 19:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Version 2.0

I have added some content and made adjustements following the above discussions. Comments are still very welcome. Pascal.Tesson 16:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This all looks very good, but imho, punching holes into it from the perspective of an advertiser should be done. For example, I don't know any off the top of my head, but remember there being a few notable hotels out in Western U.S. due to "ghostly" activity or some curse, for example and also there are scores of the same that are simply tourist traps. Since our access to historic media is limited, if various criteria are made without trying various tests such as these, then the criteria will end up being prohibitive to cases that were not fully explored. Ste4k 07:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

hmmm. Thanks for the comment but frankly I don't understand those last two sentences. Can you expand a bit? Pascal.Tesson 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Access to historic data that makes various claims true or untrue is limited enough as it is. For an only a single hypothetical example of this, consider Hotel Brazzos. Very famous hotel that saw a gun-fight. The gun-fight wasn't that important, but because of it, some millionaire lost his fortune, had to sell the hotel, but died on the very night of signing over the deed, etc. etc. add a ghost, and a small town, and you have a legitimate hotel that is historically known, but getting dimmer in the collective mind etc. There are also literally thousands of tourists traps, that would love to be able to document such a claim. On the internet, of course, they all do! :) But hotel Brazzos is a hotel that we would HOPE would not become illigitimate for criteria. We don't want to make such a tight noose that difficult to research hotels would be excluded simply because of our own inabilities rather than their actual authenticity. On the other hand, we shouldn't leave that noose too loose, to allow every hotel in the Old West from making a stake. I am only speaking figuratively here, but this notion needs to be gauged somehow, because all hotels around the world will be meausured against the criteria. And the idea of age and availability of records is only one aspect that should be tested. I suggest, perhaps, having mock AfD style trials against existing articles among those who would be interested in trying to test the criteria. That would be one form of gauge. Ste4k 16:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I would like to see how others weigh in on this but, for myself, I believe that a hotel such as the one you just describe would still survive an AfD if the defenders of the page can backup the story with some credibility. I think it is actually much easier to have rather strict guidelines. When guidelines are too loose then defenders of an article tend to exploit them by interpreting them very generously. Pascal.Tesson 23:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, but we can only at this time for each of ourselves, look at the list of criteria and we more than likely believe that everyone will understand and use the criteria likewise. To test the criteria even a few times on some obvious cases could end up giving some rather startling results. It's one thing to believe and quite a different thing, to try. I have been quite astounded at how my own interpretation of what policies already exist has differed extensively from that of others. In a normal AfD, the first thing that I consider is Policy, and usually most other people consider guidelines. The policies rest on guidelines, of course, but for example, an article might come up where there aren't any references listed, except for an external website which is evidently "official". I have seen countless times where people go through all sorts of work looking up the name of the band or the person on Google, then on Alexus, etc., but for what? The policy is already there that unverifiably sourced material should be removed. So in considering these instances, of hotels .vs. criteria, some statistical data would save a lot of people a lot of work if the kinks were worked out in advance. This is just my opinion. Ste4k 13:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skyscraper

Just wondering, could being a skyscraper above a certain number of floors be a criteria? Or for example, if the building dominates an area in terms of height/size? Ticksoft 14:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess that this would be covered by "being of architectural interest" and "being a recognized landmark of the city". For instance, I think that the notability of 2 Fevrier Sofitel Hotel is covered by the existing criteria. I don't see the need for an explicit reference to skyscraper hotels and in fact I am worried that this would be too open to interpretation. Pascal.Tesson 14:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a seperate list of notability criteria for Skyscrapers. If the hotel meets the criteria as a skyscraper the fact it is a hotel is worth mentioning in the article for the building as a skyscraper. (Ronald Regan was a politician and President. Before that, he was an actor...) Garrie 05:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguity

You might want to disambiguate the word hotel and give it a list of "this includes". Will this criteria be used for ranches? for places like DisneyWorld hotels? Bed and Breakfasts? Time shares? etc? These all seem to fit the category as far as I am concerned, but putting it in writing will prevent those gray areas from coming up, imho. Ste4k 15:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limited?

Looking over this, I think it's limited in just covering hotels, it could be expanded to establishments of any kind. I know this sounds vague, but it's just a quick note I'm jotting down. Yanksox 15:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, was recently trying to decide whether or not to add prod tags to a couple of mall articles, and could not find much help in the policy and guidelines pages. It seems that some of proposed criteria for inclusion could easily apply to malls and retail outlets. EricR 16:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to write a guideline with a wider scope. The problems I see are two-fold: first it's going to be hard something that's really general but still reasonnably short and clear. Secondly, the task is daunting and the wider the scope the harder it will be to adress all concerns. Still, if either of you is interested, I am more than willing to give it a shot if I get at least some continuous feedback from other experienced users. Pascal.Tesson 18:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What if instead of notability, it was the notability of commerical structures? Yanksox 19:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (places) would be tremendously useful—please get right on that will you?

The following critera:

• The X has some architectural importance.
• The X is a recognizable landmark of its city or region.
• The X is or was closely related to an event otherwise deemed notable.
• The X has a well-established history which has significant ties with the history of a city or region.
• The X has inspired non-trivial third party published works.

could apply to many categories of structures or places. A more general guideline may be an easier task than more specific criteria. Wikipedia:Notability (people) lists reasons for inclusion (less contentious), while WP:MUSIC seems to focus more on exluding articles. Anyway, i'm willing to help as much as possible whatever the scope.EricR 17:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I don't have time to take care of this right away but in a few days I'll get to it. Pascal.Tesson 17:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think for now it's maybe better to leave it as "hotels" or at most add other commercial establishments like restaurants. It shouldn't apply to places like the Grand Canyon. It's ok to tailor guidelines to counter the efforts of spammers, for subject areas that are vulnerable to spamming. Let's keep it narrow at first, and expand areas afterwards if successful, making tweaks that we learn from experience. Phr (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

For interest I am trying to take this approach to articles related to shopping centres in Australia. Seems that everyone wants their local mall to have an article, when 99.9% of the time once you get inside you don't know which one you're in... Garrie 05:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Five star hotels

How many five star hotels are there? Would it be so wrong to make all five star hotels notable? Stevage 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There are probably better resources, but e.g. Rome has at least 16 five star hotels, Brussels has 15 five star hotels, and Cape Town has 6 of them. Washington D.C., on the other hand, has none, which raises doubts about the correctness of this site (or my serach method), and of the use of a same standard for all hotels. Anyway, there seem to be a lot of 5 star hotels, and I doubt that a fixed standard can be found. Furthermore, I oppose making five star hotels notable per se, as they are only more expensive (and hopefully more luxurious). This is no argument for notability (something like 'the most expensive hotel in the world may be notable, on the other hand). If they are not noteworthy for their history, architecture, events, ..., then they shouldn't be included, just like any other hotel. We will, if we follow these guidelines, still end up with a larger proportion of four and five star hotels than two star hotels, but that is allright. Fram 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Do we really need another policy to clarify the notability policy? The hotel is either notable or it isnt. We have a process for deleting things that arent considered notable. Lets just use it. Sometimes, I think that some Wikipedians here confuse Wikipedia with being elected to Congress in that the goal anymore seems to be to make as many laws as possible. --Shortfuse 02:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the whole point is to facilitate the AfD debates. This has turned out to be pretty useful in the past and guidelines like WP:BIO, WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC are good tools that avoid the endless debates where AfDs are centered around "I say it's notable" vs "I say it's not". These guidelines are not meant to be laws. They are meant to be criteria which are consensual enough to guide the AfD debates. Pascal.Tesson 04:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Artworks or Interior Design

If a hotel is known for its interior design (but not necessarily architecture) or for the artworks it showcases (but did not necessarily inspire), should it be considered notable? For example, the Carlyle Hotel in New York City says on its website that "The Carlyle is a showcase of great art. Bemelmans bar contains the only surviving public murals of artist/author Ludwig Bemelmans, the creator of the famed Madeline children’s book series. Additional works by Audubon, Kips, Redoute and Vertes adorn the hotel’s walls," and that "The Carlyle is a virtual catalog of design history, home to the work of some of the world’s most legendary decorators including: Dorothy Draper, Mark Hampton, and Renzo Mongiardino." Do yout think these distinctions alone should be considered to make the Carlyle notable, assuming for the sake of argument that it isn't notable for other reasons?Hickoryhillster 22:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In this case the Carlyle Hotel article would look like the article for a notable art museum / gallery, which just happens to also operate as a Hotel. The article needs to be notable under some criterion, it doesn't have to be notable for everything .

How notable was Ronald Regan as an actor? but he's worth an article because he was a President. That article will mention, that he was also an actor (and it will probably list some of his credits I guess...) Garrie 05:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)