Talk:Red Lion Hotels Corporation

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merge Red Lion Hotels here[edit]

Red Lion Hotels covers the major division of Red Lion Hotels Corporation and has no notability apart from that. The two articles should be merged. TJRC (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - The fact that the subsidiary and the parent company share the same name might lend one to believe that a merger would be a good idea, however, the tumultuous history of acquisition and divestment of the parent company - which has only owned the Red Lion chain for 7 years - indicates full or partial liquidation of the Red Lion Hotel chain by Red Lion Hotels Corporation is at least in the realm of possibility. If that were to happen, the two separated companies would each merit their own article on the basis of (1) the former parents continued NYSE listing, and (2) the chain's relative size and history. Given recent events in the last 6 months of the parent's corporate history, I believe a wait-and-see approach would be preferable, however, revisiting the merger idea in 6-12 months might not be a bad idea.

Also, since these pages are new and under construction, it might be nice to at least table this discussion for a few days until the articles can at least be complete so as to allow a more holistic frame of reference. Bluecanary99 (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the tabling. No sense discussing the merge if the articles might be very different between now and a decision. TJRC (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]