Talk:Mauna Kea Beach Hotel

Untitled

from VfD:

Advertising. Spam. Promotional. No potential to become encyclopedic. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:45, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Not a substantial article, but I'd still call it promotional. Delete. --Idont Havaname 00:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Not so promotional, but no more than a Yellow Pages listing. Not notable. Geogre 03:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. --fvw* 11:49, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
• Keep, decent stub subject gets 24,000 Google hit. - SimonP 01:41, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Previous AfD

After creating this article and having no knowledge of its previous deletion, I see that the deletion discussions made no references to the hotel's historical or architectural honors. I don't have access to the deleted version, but I might assume it cited no secondary sources either. It seemed to be a case of "I don't see why its notable and I won't do any research, therefore its non-notable and should be deleted." *sigh*. --Oakshade 20:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

I was in the middle of working on this article when my work was reverted without discussion, in what seem disruptive edits. The hotel was briefly notable 45 years ago, but now there are several hotels in the are that are even more expensive. I was reworking into an article on the bay, including the notable history before the building was built (the family owning the land, part of Parker Ranch). There may also be more notable things about the area, say, after the building is torn down following the next earthquake. I never denied the building was notable, but even in National Historic Districts we do not necessarily give each building its own article, if it would never get beyond the one or two sentence stage. This is a matter of taste, but the civil thing to do would be to put a {{split}} template and discuss with mutual respect of the editors involved. A knee-jerk revert within five minutes with no discussion seems an abuse.

N.B. There is no such thing as a "National Historic District" as a proper noun phrase. The currently linked phrase National Historic District is under discussion to be deleted. What is meant was perhaps "a historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. --doncram (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I noticed even more of my work was taken out. For example, I spelled the name according to U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Kauna‘oa Bay rather than hotel advertising. I removed the unsourced "famous for being built on one of the finest white sand beaches", and "renowned firm" peacock terms, which have now been put back in violiation of Wikipedia guidelines. The description of public access sourced to official government information was taken out, so it is back to misleading the reader into thinking the beach is private. The unsourced claim it is built "on the beach" is also false, although it is closer than probably modern building code would allow. A web site that is no longer active has been put back in. An accessable newspaper article I added as a source has been replaced by one that is no longer freely available. Another link that I fixed to a working one was changed back to a non-working one. This looks like either a conflict of interest or a case of ownership. If one editor takes out verifiable sourced material and replaces it with unsourced, the burden of proof is on the remover to show that is not a disruptive edit. I hope we can discuss this before conflict resolution is needed. W Nowicki (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's very bad editing on Oakshade's part. But I think it would be better to write up the Kaunaoa Bay article first, then make this one a redirect. I agree that the MKBH doesn't really seem notable enough to warrant its own article. KarlM (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(moved to topic) I think what you [KarlM] are proposing is what I did already: The K Bay article had a section on the Hotel (which is more notable than others that have articles, so deserves a mention) and Mauna Kea Beach Hotel was a redirect to that one. Oakshade removed all information about the bay from Wikipedia articles. Not a big deal but a step backwards IMO. I proposed a compromise on his talk page. I suppose while awaiting more opinions I can dig out the K Bay article and stuff relevant parts into the redirect page. W Nowicki (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest???? Ownership???? Please assume good faith. I have absolutely NOTHING to do with this property or business. I've never even been to the island of Hawaii. Please don't attack other editors without anything to support your attack. As far as ownership goes, this was an architectualy renowned property and it has received in-depth coverage by reliable sources. That's why I created an article about it. Feel free to erase anything that's un-sourced in the article. But please don't removed sourced content. If you feel the article topic doesn't warrant inclusion, feel free to nominate it for AFD.--Oakshade (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right it was unfair to speculate on motivation. I was just frustrated with being diverted from adding content. For the record, I was never able to afford the place either. And to be clear, I was not the one removing content, just adding sources that were more acessable. The only thing I removed were peacock terms and a commercial web link. W Nowicki (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed that information about the geographical feature of the bay because that's a different topic. This is an article about a hotel, not the geographical feature bay. Different topic, different category and different article. --Oakshade (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've recreated the geographical feature article of Kaunaoa Bay and restored its relevant content. Again, if anyone feels that this hotel article fails the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, you can send it to nominate it for deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion, but I (and perhaps KarlM, the Hawaii project is pretty sparse) thought the bay and hotel were the same topic. There are many precedents for just mentioning buildings in an article about a place rather than forcing stubs for each one. Geographic information was relevant before you moved it back. The beach was obviously the reason the hotel was built there. Anyway it looks like the bay article has been restored, so let's move on. Two stubs until someone else merges them I suppose. W Nowicki (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think they were the same, but given how short the hotel article is, and the lack of much notability for it, I don't see the need for two separate ones. I'm not an architect, but is it really "renowned"??? It looks pretty pedestrian to me (the Four Seasons down the coast is much better-looking). If it is, then there should be a picture of what's architecturally significant. FWIW, the Hana Hou article says that the AIA ranking was not from the AIA itself, but determined by "1,800 randomly sampled Americans". Where they found that many that knew about the kind of buildings that are on the list, I don't know. But given that the MKBH ranked behind the 5th Avenue Apple Store, I don't think it's really a big honor. KarlM (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your subjective opinion that a hotel that was honored by the American Institute of Architects twice and has been written about quite extensively now is "pedestrian" is noted, but individual users subjective opinions are not proper basis in deciding article inclusion. We go by coverage from independent reliable sources. If you feel this topic fails WP:NOTABILITY (ie, you feel it has not received significant coverage by reliable sources), then send it to AFD and see what happens. And about that Hana Hou article "New Life for An American Icon", it only explained part of the process. According to the AIA website, 2,448 AIA members nominated 247 structures (were talking out of all millions of structure in the US) and 1,804 Americans choose their preferences out of 78 randomly selected from that 247. Also remember that the first AIA honors in the 1960s was solely based on AIA members opinions. And since you're valuing the ranking, it was ranked ahead of Rockefeller Center, Transamerica Pyramid, Crystal Cathedral and the Guggenheim Museum amongst many others. --Oakshade (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that single user's opinions shouldn't be the basis of notability, but I hope you weren't trying to convince me. The fact that all of those buildings ranked behind both the MKBH and the Apple Store, and the methods behind it, just reinforces my view that it's pretty much a worthless honor. You still haven't mentioned what's notable about it? Am I missing something? I haven't been able to find many pictures online, but from the overview aerial shot it looks blocky, like a hundred similar resorts. Not very different, in fact, from the Hapuna Prince next door, but slightly less pleasing to my eye. KarlM (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that was my point: 45 years ago it was the first in the Kohala area, and the use of an open-air atrium to take advantage of the natural ventilation from the trade winds was innovative. My guess is many Wikipedia readers were not born yet. Not being an architect, I have no idea what "fine spacial sequences" means. The fact that the style has been copied over the years shows how sucessful it was. But that is inherently tied to its location: if was built in, say, North Dakota, it might not have been so popular. :-) As I understand inclusion on the list was done by professionals, and probably included historic merit. The placement within the list however was done by self-selected web visitors, not a scientific sample, and they admit by "popularity", but this article does not mention how it ranked, just that it was selected. If I am allowed to speculate on a source, my guess is voters for this one were the layed-off employees who wanted to make sure it was rebuilt and re-opened.

As for photos, I also could not find any. However, did run across Carol M. Highsmith who photographed the AIA 150 except this one and one other! Her photos have all been donated to LOC, so are a great source (but not for this). I worked a bit on her article but it needs more wikification.

I still question the pay "preview" site being added back in. What does it add to the article? W Nowicki (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't know which "preview" site you're referring to, but reliable sources provide validity to the content and placing citations should always be encouraged.--Oakshade (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There is only one with the word "preview" I find in the article: Special Preview website asks me to buy it for $2495. It is one I took out and you put back in. Could KarlM or some other editor please check it out and see if my machine is somehow acting up, or is it neither reliable nor a source? Mahalo. W Nowicki (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were talking about the references. I agree with you on that one.--Oakshade (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "pay preview", it's a dead link; the domain owner is offering to sell the name. KarlM (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mauna Kea Beach Hotel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510113118/http://favoritearchitecture.org/afa150.php to http://favoritearchitecture.org/afa150.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3A9IfPBvE0HOoJ%3Awww.hawaii.aaa.com%2Fhi_westways%2FPages%2F0909-mauna-kea.aspx%20%22welcome%20home%22%20%22Mauna%20Kea%20beach%20hotel%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mauna Kea Beach Hotel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727184759/http://prft.org/index.php/prft/RICHARD_PALMER_SMART to http://prft.org/index.php/prft/RICHARD_PALMER_SMART
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3A9IfPBvE0HOoJ%3Awww.hawaii.aaa.com%2Fhi_westways%2FPages%2F0909-mauna-kea.aspx%20%22welcome%20home%22%20%22Mauna%20Kea%20beach%20hotel%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013034427/http://www.princeresortshawaii.com/mauna-kea-resort-hawaii.php to http://www.princeresortshawaii.com/mauna-kea-resort-hawaii.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)