:The thing is, we want to have articles on important scholars and large corporations. There should be a neutral article on a chain as large and important as Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts. Whether their individual hotels should have articles is something that should be decided on an article by article basis. You tagged these articles for speedy deletion, which is designed to leave very little time for review (basically, an admin or other respected Wikipedian comes along and decides to delete or to remove the tag within a minute or so). For topics where many people think we should have an article (as with the hotel chain), the best thing to do when you encounter a problem ("this reads like advertising") is to fix the article by editing it so it no longer reads like an advertisement. If an article is a beautiful and perfect neutral encyclopedia article, then deleting it just because one of the authors might have had a conflict of interest is bad for Wikipedia. In cases of doubt, you can always start a deletion discussion at WP:AFD, which might have the perfect result that somebody comes along and cleans up the article (so there is no longer an advertisement / neutrality problem plus Wikipedia has an article on a reasonably important business). Imagine we find out that our article on Microsoft reads like an advertisement or was written by Microsoft employees. Do you seriously believe it is better to have no article on Microsoft than to try and fix the problems?  
 :About that scholar: The article is quite short, but contains a clear claim of notability. Whether that is sufficient is something that is difficult for an admin (i.e. a non-expert on the article topic) to decide. It is much more productive to submit such questions to the wider audience of WP:AFD than to the small audience of admins who watch the speedy deletion category. Always remember that we are trying to write an encyclopedia, not weed out all problematic articles immediately. There is no deadline, and if you slow down on your nominations, you will become more efficient.