Deletion of Conrad Bangkok

Comment: No good sources found, analysis above has demonstrated the current sources are low quality. C'mon, people, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES)

Comment: Please note that Scope Creep in a comment provides an  argument. If this line of thought is irrelevant for the purpose keep argumentation, it should be irrelevant also for delete argumentation
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: Saying that {{tq|WP will be worse off without}} the precious knowledge that {{tq|Conrad Bangkok also has a gym, a spa, a swimming pool, a tennis court and a rooftop jogging track}} rather appears as a joke from a ''delete'' voter!. Moreover |N-O-R-G, one of the famous letter soup used here, seems to say something about inheritance. Are you sure to be a ''keep'' voter
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG)

Comment: Great pile on and with no analysis. Has NOTDIR, ,  and  magically dissapeared. There is 39 of these hotels, with another eight in the pipeline, and they are identical for the most part.  Looking at it from a purely "encyclopedic content" perspective, each article will be a general listing of the same information, in the same format, consisting of low-quality location information, in a directory like structure, managed by UPE. How-to find it, just like Google
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL4||WP:DEL14||WP:NCORP)

Comment: Hi {{ping|Rhododendrites}} ''Bangkok joins the powerhouse'' and you don't think it is affiliate news that has the exact article on another newspaper on the list above. You wonder why I commented in the middle of Cunard comments, because it looks  kind of filibuster to stop folk discussing the article. The wilful ignorance show here regarding  and  is worrying. More so because this is one of 38 in the Conrad range, with the exact same profile in Fodor's that the rest have, virtually the same as this profile article. The Conrad range is part of the 6000 odd owned by Hilton. There is virtually nothing you can say about it, except that it is big. It fails  with trivial coverage that would expect of a big hotel. Not a single fact makes it stand amongst its mates
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:NOTDIR||WP:NCORP)

Comment: The sources provided by Cunard are more than sufficient to establish notability per  and most certainly per . The objections to Cunard's sources are unconvincing. E.g. the first source, http://archive.today/2020.11.16-094303/https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/1239DDCD565BB588&f=basic provides in-depth non-perfunctory review of the hotel. Yes, the review is quite complimemtary, but there is no evidence that the author from The Daily Telegraph should be regarded as non-independent. The article was published in the Features section of the paper. I see no reason why we are supposed to treat this source as "advertisement" rather than as a bona fide independent source; at least no such reason has been offered
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:Run-of-the-mill  is an |essay and "''Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Essays (WP:ESSAY)

Comment: Non-notable hotel. Native advertisement. Sources presented fails , , , and per , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:SIRS||WP:DEL4||WP:DEL14||WP:NOTDIR)