Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elegant Hotels Group


 * 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 delete. per detailed analysis of sources by delete side. Spartaz Humbug! 07:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Elegant Hotels Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

1. NN corp, fails especially WP:CORPDEPTH 2. are we a business directory nowadays? Widefox ; talk 21:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I created this article. I felt that being the largest independent hotel operator in Barbados and Barbados' largest hotel industry employer would swing it. They have also had a fair amount of press coverage. Happy to hear opinions Uhooep (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain owning 7 hotels isn't enough around here per se for inherent notability - there's always a largest operator when the geographical area is small enough, but then it's of local concern rather than notable (for ever) in a global encyclopedia (sure, it's a country)...
 * or we go by notability for example these sources are routine coverage not counting for notabilty Elegant Hotels striving for more ...reviews pricing strategy after fall in pound.
 * Separately, we're WP:NOTDIRECTORY and notability (which isn't clear to me) is not the only grounds for deletion, but promotion and WP:NOT generally, for example WP:PROMOTION ...local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts..etc etc. Widefox ; talk 23:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 03:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 03:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment other hotel operators have wikipedia articles and fewer properties such as Beaches Resorts (3 resorts), Couples Resorts (4 resorts), and Fiesta hotels (7 brands?). Others such as Sandals Resorts (15 resorts) also have articles. I agree it should be about coverage, not number of properties. Uhooep (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid at AfD.
 * Why is this highly run-of-the-mill business listed here, when it currently fails CORPDEPTH, as noted on the talk Talk:Elegant_Hotels_Group. I have my concern that I came across this while trying to eliminate the creator's account from promo activity at WP:COIN. Widefox ; talk 11:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This article needs work and expansion, but the cited references (including The Times, the Financial Times, and the London Evening Standard) are sufficient to pass GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, GNG is quite different to CORPDEPTH, do you consider Times, Times is excluded from notability as M&A in WP:CORPDEPTH, similarly Times is excluded per "routine", FT is an interview so non-independent. Widefox ; talk 01:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep largest independent hotel operator in Barbados, a country with a significant tourism industry, backed up by sufficient sources which to me justify inclusion. Uhooep (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per substantial coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a very simply requirement for meeting the criteria for establishing notability. Reasons such as "largest hotel operator in Barbados" and similar are not sufficient. There must be references and a topic must have two "intellectually independent" reliable references as per GNG and WP:NCORP. A number of the Keep !voters have used reasons such as "substantial coverage", "sufficient to pass GNG" and "backed up by sufficient sources" but none have responded to Widefox (correctly) pointing out that those references fails the criteria for establishing notability.
 * Leaving aside the obvious business listings in Bloomberg, financial results, announcements of appointments and announcements from associated companies and bidders (as they fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND we are left with the following references...
 * This travelweekly.co.uk reference is based on a company announcement (the headline confirms it was an announcement from Elegant Hotels), is not intellectually independent. Fails WP:ORGIND. This follow-up reference repeats information provided by a company announcement and also fails WP:ORGIND. This third reference is also based on a company announcement, is not intellectually independent and also fails WP:ORGIND.
 * this thetimes.co.uk reference relies on unattributed information provided to the newspaper which is merely repeated, fails WP:RS. The reference contains no independent opinion or analysis, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This nationnews.com reference is based on a company announcement and company-provided information. Fails WP:ORGIND. This next reference from the same source is based on a ceremony marking the completion of students who finished their internships with the company. The article relies entirely on interviews with the students and quotations from the human resources director. The reference is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * Finally, this standard.co.uk reference is also based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Having looked at the references, I agree with nom. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP, specifically, no references pass the criteria for establishing notability and they fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 19:06, 21 January 2018 (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.