Talk:White Lodging

Notability
Notability is still in question as the AfD closed as no consensus. If it had closed as "Keep" then the removal of the Notability tag would be justified. Right now, the notability of this company is still in question. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. In fact, this is probably the most appropriate use of Template:Notability possible. We held a discussion and could not decide if the article is notable or not. The sources added were not sufficient to carry the AfD discussion. If you're contesting whether the article is notable, there's only one sure way to decide: open another AfD. John from Idegon (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Marriott image
This image has been removed by three separate editors by now. Please seek consensus on the Talk page to restore it. In my opinion, the image is not relevant and can be perceived as promotional.

An appropriate image would be the company's logo. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously think a company of this size cares about an image like that? They trade in $billions. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? I'm not following how the comment is pertinent to the discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The presence of a small image in the corner of this stub does not promote their business in any material way. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Two other editors have found the image's presence in the article not relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The first one because its presence was not explained by text, which is understandable and the other because they don't believe the article should exist at all and therefore pointily wish to diminish it if they can. We have a free image from Commons of a hotel the company manage with a source confirming it. Managing hotels is their business. The image is highly relevant to the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Photos should illustrate some aspect of the copy of the article. There is nothing in the article about this particular property. There is nothing to distinguish this property from any other property they have ran. And finally, management contracts are finite. There is no guarantee they'll be running it this time next year. John from Idegon (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The copy is in the caption. I will add it into the body too. Your other points are irrelevant. It can be removed if they stop running it. This is a freely licenced photo from Commons about a hotel that they run. The presumption is that such a photo be used unless there is a very good reason why not and we have no other relevant photos. It doesn't have to pass some sort of super test like a fair use image. Please accept that the article is staying and help to improve it.
 * Bottom line, its a free photo of a hotel managed by a company that manage hotels. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not free, it's copyrighted. It can be used on this article, but you have given no sources or policy that indicates it should. So until you can persuade the editors here or get other editors involved, it's out. John from Idegon (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you add copy from the same source you used in the caption, I'll revert that too. Not real interested in making Wikipedia a branch of this or any other company's PR effort. John from Idegon (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)