Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Hyatt 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 delete. What matters under our guidelines are reliable sources covering this hotel, and the "delete" opinions don't make reference to any. Sandstein 15:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hyatt Kuala Lumpur

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel and it fails the following requirement per WP:NBUILD: "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." Wikiwriter700 (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses -related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article isn't much but neither is the nomination. The essential fact here is that this is a major hotel in a capital city and so there are literally thousands of sources out there. See WP:NEXIST, WP:NOEFFORT and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may well be notable, but there is nothing in the article to demonstrate this. It has no sources. So, if someone who knows more about it than I do fixes it, I will change my vote, --Bduke (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at 43 stories and as one of the tallest buildings in Kuala Lumpur a Skyscraper is notable. Lightburst (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet GNG or NBUILD. Coverage is routine, run of the mill, promos, ads, nothing that meets RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. NBUILD states "... 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." The article contains no claim of historic, social, economic, or architectural importance and there are no sources to show any. // Timothy :: talk 17:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ordinary hotel. Until a skyscraper is 60 stories, it's not inherently notable. This would be dwarfed by other skyscrapers in Kuala Lampur, a city that I've visited. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not an ordinary hotel. I would say that Grand Hyatts in major Asian capitals are typically notable. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm sorry, but as we claim that there are seventy-some buildings in the city that are as tall or taller, its height is unremarkable, and Grand Hyatts are everywhere. There is no claim to notability here, and I frankly don't see how a bland modernist box gets any notability without at least an attempt at saying what's special about it. The things that people are claiming are special in this discussion are utterly ordinary. Mangoe (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of hotels that get routine coverage for being hotels. BD2412 T 05:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NBUILD requires that buildings have "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources" in order to demonstrate that it has any kind of historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, which this building does not appear to have. As mentioned already, the sources added are simple run of the mill promotional material and items in which the hotel is only tangentially mentioned. Rorshacma (talk) 15:47, 25 October 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.