Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swissôtel The Howard

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 merge to Swissôtel. No consensus for deletion, but lack of sources should preclude a separate article. A brief mention in the article about the greater chain should suffice until/unless sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swissôtel The Howard

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

A non-notable subsidiary of Swissôtel per WP:CHAIN. While other hotels of the kind may have architectural features making them notable, I can't see any such references in this article. De728631 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbify and merge to Hotels in London or Swissôtel. This is a non-notable branch of a chain with no particular distinguishing features; Britain is not a member of the World Hotel Rating system, and thus "Five star hotel" is a meaningless marketing term used by hotel marketing departments. (A hotel will often describe itself as three-star, four-star, five-star etc in different publications/websites, depending on whether they're emphasising value or luxury to that particular market.) See this discussion from the time I previously {{prod}}ded this article (and others in the series) for my thoughts in full as to why I don't believe the individual branches of hotel chains warrant stand-alone articles unless they're of particular historic or architectural significance. – iride scent 15:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Needs third party sources for sure but a google search indicates potential sources. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see any good sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2010 (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.