Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hospitality House of Tulsa


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hospitality House of Tulsa

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I do not feel this article passes notability requirements for organizations. I don't feel there are sufficient claims to notability and the only sources are articles from the local news source. WP:ORG currently has the following to say about that:


 * "attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability"

and, under non-commercial:


 * "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead."

Author has made it clear on the talk page that they are dealing with this article as they would a home page (information for guests, donors, and volunteers of the house) rather than an encyclopedia article. It may be suited as a redirect to House of Hospitality, but I don't believe it should be a standalone article. 132 03:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

-Thank you again for your help. I appreciate your help in making this entry better.

I reviewed the WP:ORG information, and further edited the Hospitality House of Tulsa entry with more references to other news sources. I feel that because Hospitality House of Tulsa has been featured in at least four separate news sources in two cities, it has "demonstrable effects on society". Each article demonstrates the impact this organization is having on people not just in Tulsa, but also people who have traveled from numerous other states for treatment in Tulsa.

Could you please help me understand how Hospitality House of Tulsa still fails to meet this guideline in WP:ORG: "Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." I understand from this guideline that smaller organizations such as the Hospitality House of Tulsa can be "notable" just as larger organizations like the Ronald McDonald House, if they have "demonstrable effects on society." I am having trouble understanding why Hospitality House of Tulsa does not meet this standard, when four other hospitality houses have their own Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_hospitality

Please help me understand why Hospitality House of Tulsa does not belong with these other Wikipedia entries.Mbjohnson1 (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I would move to keep. Pustelnik (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  The existance of other articles at Wikipedia does not mean that this article belongs here.  This article should be argued on its own merits, as spelled out at WP:N, and not because of superficial resemblance to other articles, which themselves may either merit deletion, or may have reasons to be kept that this one lacks.  Please base your arguements on the merits of this article only.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I removed the inappropriate material. There seems to be sufficient sources ,between the references and the external links, to support notability. I'm not all the strong on local notability, hence only a weak keep to express my personal view, but it seems to pass the necessary standards, hence the keep.  DGG (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

-Thank you to everyone for your feedback and help in making this entry better. It is so appreciated. Mbjohnson1 (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete – written like an advertisement or otherwise material that could be placed on their own site. This is not what Wikipedia is for. There also seems to be a conflict of interest and some ownership going on here. MuZemike 02:02, 17 April 2009 (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.