Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eko Hotels and Suites


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Eko Hotels and Suites

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only source that actually references anything in this whole article is source 5 "Kaye Whiteman (2013). Lagos: A Cultural and Literary History Volume 5 of Landscapes of the Imagination. Andrews UK Limited. ISBN 9781908493897" which indeed states that the hotel was completed in 1977. All other sources do mention the hotel but they do not support the content that they are supposed to reference. Either delete or change to the article's earlier state as a redirect to Chagoury Group. Takeaway (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: Are you kidding me? Apart from the fact that this is a well known and one of the most popular hotels in Lagos, it has many sources which are not even cited in the article. I was very sure it passed the general notability criteria before it was created. I suggest that you check the sources properly to support your assertion that they don't refer to anything in the article before considering your nomination for deletion. This article should be kept for the right reasons. You can further butress your point by specifying exactly which of the sources that doesn't describe anything in the article. Eruditescholar (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not doubting the notability of the subject, I am doubting the amount of content for which the few sources seem inadequate:
 * Ref 1 was poorly chosen as it gave results for a search on Lagos City Hall. After entering a correct search for Eko Hotel, this comes up, mentioning the name and location of the hotel in a somewhat promotional tone but not much else worthy of encyclopaedic interest.
 * Ref 2 is the tripadvisor review page for the hotel, and it is not really a reliable source.
 * Ref 3 shows a few lines mentioning the hotel in a promotional way.
 * Ref 4 is a booking website mentioning the hotel only in a promotional manner.
 * Ref 5 mentions the hotel in only two lines, to state when, where, and for what it was built, and that it had passed through a few owners since.
 * I am now wondering where all the content in this article actually comes from because it is very difficult to cull it from these few inadequate sources. The article needs to at least be reduced to what the provided sources actually can support or new reliable sources must be found to support the content. - Takeaway (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Like restaurants, hotels are bound to be mentioned in published sources of some form as this is an essential part of generating business. However to be included we need some sources which provide more than the run-of-the-mill reviews and these do not appear to exist. Trip Advisor is obviously of no use for demonstrating that WP:CORP is met. I also share Takeaways concerns about where the content came from as the first version appears to have copied content from this site. e.g. article: "serves sizzling hot barbecues and grills spiced with suya." source: "sizzling hot barbecues and grills spiced with suya are served to your taste." etc. SmartSE (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Takeaway, your basis for deletion is still not justified by the description of all these sources. The only reference which looks like a review is the one from trip advisor which should have been an external link. The others are multiple reliable sources irrespective of the extent of coverage of the sources on the subject. Since the subject is notable, what it actually needs is a clean up or rewriting to remove unsourced entries and not a deletion based on unsourced entries. The article is well covered in multiple offline sources not stated here. There really is no need to destroy the article when it only needs improvement to comply with Wikipedia's policies.
 * Feel free to correct the content you wrote so it complies with the sources. And please find new sources which actually reference the content that you want to keep. It is allowed to do so during an AfD. As for calling a hotel booking website a reliable source of content? I don't think so. - Takeaway (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * More sources have been added to unsourced entries in the article with further corrections to some references and external links. Notwithstanding, there's still room for improvement.Eruditescholar (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @SmartSE: The first version even if it was copied was significantly altered and rewritten to avoid copyright issues and subsequently it has got nothing to do with this AFD discussion. Eruditescholar (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as the article overall is still questionable, local place and still unlikely better notable. SwisterTwister   talk  05:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @ SwisterTwister Your reason for deletion is apparently not clear. Please, clarify and be specific. What is still questionable about the article and what makes the hotel not notable? Eruditescholar (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It is very easy for any contributor to just come and hastily opt for Delete in this AFD discussion without taking a closer scrutiny regarding the notability of the subject of this article. This is even more crucial because it looks like the nominator made the right choice using convincing arguments to ensure that this article is deleted. The notability of this hotel is very obvious so I am still wondering why it was even nominated in the first place when it should have been tagged or reviewed for improvement. In order to eliminate unsourced entries, I have made some changes and added several online sources I could find and these sources exclude the many offline sources I couldn’t access. Once again, I am re-iterating my inquiry as I didn’t get any response from my previous one after relevant issues have already been addressed; Can the nominator Takeaway and the contributor SwisterTwister  please justify their stance by specifying and reassessing their reason for clinging to the delete option? Eruditescholar (talk)
 * These local places are not always easy for notability because there will not be a solid enough amount of sources therefore I'm simply not confident this can be better. SwisterTwister   talk  00:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly: What do you mean by referring to the hotel as a “local place”? Secondly: This hotel has received significant coverage in multiple reliable third-party published sources that are independent of it." Obviously the sources are more than adequate to support the article. All the information about this particular hotel in Lagos were obtained from these very sources which included national newspapers, journals, books. So your statement about the difficulty to ascertain the notability of the hotel is out of the question because the hotel is already notable and well covered in many of the sources. Eruditescholar (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in the nomination, most of the promotionally sounding text in the article was not referenced at all when I nominated the article for deletion. You have been busy adding refs in the meantime and the article is now much better sourced. I am satisfied with the article as it now stands, and change my vote to keep. - Takeaway (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for expatiating on your reason for nominating the article for deletion. I am grateful for the fact that you have acknowledged the notability of the article's subject amidst contrary expectations. The saving grace of this article is that all entries which look promotional are supported with multiple reliable citations. Although I hope this AfD goes in the right direction, I have assumed good faith and left the rest for the closing admin to decide on the stance of its presence in Wikipedia. Eruditescholar (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  18:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Eko Hotel is clearly the most popular hotel in Lagos State. If it's not on Wiki, then no W/African hotel should even be on Wiki. Award ceremonies and notable events always takes place there. Ulabcie (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Of note is that the nominator effectively withdrew, !voting to keep the article later in the discussion. North America1000 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.