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. If anyone would like the deleted history to work into a proposed Draft:First Sponsor Group or anything else, please ask me. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bilderberg (hotel chain) (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)

As written, the article is a clear failure of WP:NCOMPANY (no assertion of notability) as ell as WP:V (unreferenced). A local hotel chain may be notable, but sources are needed. WP:BEFORE does not reveal much. Nl wiki article is of little help as it also sports no reference outside one for [1] that seems like a press release or a rewrite of one. News search shows only similar low quality sources, through maybe some good sources are in Dutch (I tried translating a few, but maybe something better escaped me). The search for sources is further complicated as there is an unrelated (I think) Bilderberg Hotel. Two of the hotels sport restaurants that have gotten Michelin awards so are independently notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED. The chain, as far as I can tell, did not earn any wards, nor was the subject of any in-depth study or analysis. The only argument for keeping this that I can think is to argue that it is a presumably sizeable chain for the Netherlands, but this is WP:OR for us to say so (and in either case, 'keep b/ce the compay is big' is not an argument that's particularly well grounded in policy and there is a counter in WP:YELLOWPAGES). In other words, the company is not notable unless we can find a source that says otherwise, and my BEFORE failed. Maybe a Dutch speaker help dig out something I missed? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desparate attempt to destroy a notable hotel chain after A7 and Prod failed. Still no sensible arguments. Misusing AfD to enforce improvements. The Banner talk 21:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad to see that the nominator fails to recognize proper sources and therefore misjudges the quality of them. But this and this are a few of the proper source sthat a bit thorough WP:BEFORE could have unearthed. And even with Google Translate you can get the gist of them. The Banner talk 05:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misset Horeca is a niche outlet that does not even have a nl wiki article, and google translate of it's about gives us "Misset Horeca is the multimedia source of information for entrepreneurs and managers in the hospitality industry. With news, practical tips and useful business information.". So it is an online trade journal. Both articles read like press releases (ex. with sections like "About Bilderberg" or "Fletcher Hotels"; in fact 80% of those articles seem to be content copied from the 'about us' pages of various companies), quoting heavily people like "Managing Director of Bilderber" and covering ROUTINE business events "Queens Bilderberg Nederland (QBN) sells four hotels to Fletcher. Fletcher takes over Hotel de Buunderkamp, ​​Hotel Klein Zwitserland, De Klepperman and Hotel Wolfheze." and "The British investor QMH Limited has announced that the sale of Bilderberg has been completed. The completion of the transaction follows the announcement about the intended sale on 3 July 2017." This is hardly enough to pass NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I speak Dutch. PKaPP is right. Misset is a trade journal and its articles are (based on) press releases, routine business announcements, not the kind of independent reporting that WP:NCORP requires. Vexations (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree that the source offered above clearly, as most trade journals do, reprints press releases without making efforts to establish facts independently, so is not an independent source as required to establish notability. I have tried hard to find independent reliable sources that discuss this hotel chain rather than the Bilderberg meeting and the individual hotel after which it is named, but have been unable to do so. I am open to changing my opinion if such sources are offerred, but if the best we can do is a couple of press releases in a trade journal then this has to be a delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename into First Sponsor Group. The Singapore-based parent of the Bilderberg Group is extremely notable.[2] For example, the hotels that were, according to the article, formerly part of the chain are now owned by another First Sponsor Group unit. Focus on small business units is quite similar to tunnel vision. gidonb (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW If this feels complicated to a discussion closer, I'm happy to make the change myself. There are plenty of articles out there about the First Sponsor Group, including its acquisition of the Bilderberg chain. Bilderberg attracts a lot of interest from fringe folks, supporters left and right of (often antisemitic) conspiracy theories. We would do well to move away from the Bilderberg terminology where this is the right decision also from a business-encyclopedic perspective. One change, many benefits! gidonb (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: @The Banner: @Vexations: @Phil Bridger: Looking forward to your response! gidonb (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: You are welcome to create article about the possibly notable parent company, but I don't see what can be gained from merging this there. The parent may contain a sentence about owning such a subsidiary, and when the parent is created, this article could be redirecting there (I am fine with SOFTDELETE in such a case). But just renaming this article is not a good idea, 90% if not 99% of the content here is irrelevant and would need to be cut. I don't see how this article can be saved outside SOFTDELETE&REDIRECT (PRESERVE). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misset Horeca is indeed a trade journal but with real journalistic covering. Just like every newspaper. It is not a copy-and-paste medium as suggested above. The Banner talk 18:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trade journal is not a newspaper. And reprinting press releases is not 'real journalistic covering'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, earlier you were unable to read Dutch sources, but now you are able to judge a magazine and its contents? And how they work? The Banner talk 14:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, This applies: "Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. This is because businesses often use these publications to increase their visibility." There is no need to be able to read in the original Dutch what are clearly not "feature stories". And in case anyone wonders about machine translation, Google translate is actually pretty good at translating Dutch to English. Vexations (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest is to perform a simple move (with the button) and rewrite of the article as is. As User:Piotrus says, only one sentence would be relevant but that is about all there is. The article is basically a list of assets that are also assets of the parent group. Even the "former assets" are assets of the First Sponsor Group. I have made such changes to articles before. Since we are here in the midst of a procedure, I would like permission to go ahead, at least from those who already "voted", or at the very least a non-objection. gidonb (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: @The Banner: @Vexations: @Phil Bridger: Your feedback is appreciated! gidonb (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb, I'd suggest that you create the article Draft:First Sponsor Group, make sure you have enough sources, and then propose move it into article space and merge the Bilderberg (hotel chain) article into that one and leave this as a redirect. It's complicated enough as it is. And of course, it's not uncommon for assets like hotels to be sold and resold, businesses merge. The risk that some or all of those hotels end up under different ownership is not merely hypothetical. I'm afraid that the real reason we have anything at all about this hotel business is that their name is associated with a conspiracy theory about a secret "world government". See Bilderberg meeting So now we need some way of properly disambiguating between a not-really-known-for-anything-else hotel (Bilderberg Hotel) the chain (Bilderberg (hotel chain)) and the annual conference (Bilderberg meeting). Vexations (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As explained in detail above, the chain has no independent notablity. It exists to help the parent company to organize its assets. Hotels get moved in and out of the chain all the time. One has to wonder if chain status matters even to people directly effected. If there is any information in the article worth keeping, it can be added to Bilderberg Hotel or to First Sponsor Group, the parent company. Colin Gerhard (talk) 03:09, 13 February 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.