Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katara Hospitality


 * 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  No consensus. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Katara Hospitality

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD removed without addressing underlying GNG. Subject is a government department, and a small one at that. Notability of its subsidiaries (hotels) does not confer notability on the holding company Rhadow (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Za  wl  08:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, as article's sourcing (based on many WP:RS demonstrates GNG.  Schwede 66  18:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is more than enough sourcing for this one. The article even references Reuters, a very high quality news source. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  18:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep sources such as references are ok and no prob Leodikap (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: References fail the criteria for establishing notability as they are either PRIMARY sources (or entirely based on PRIMARY sources such as PR or company announcements) or mentions-in-passing. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. A common misunderstanding frequently encountered at AfD and repeated here is that if an "independent" source that meets WP:RS publishes an article, it meets the criteria for notability. This is not the case and an entirely incorrect interpretation. A source may be "independent" and print a company announcement and this fails as a reference for the purposes of establishing notability. The reference/article itself must be "intellectually independent" - simply publishing a company announcement with no independent opinion or analysis fails the criteria for establishing notability. Similarly, the Reuters article attributes facts to anonymous "banking sources" and is therefore unreliable. Perhaps the !keep voters above can point to two references that they believe meets the criteria and does not fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing ++ 12:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are a few reliable sources I could find which discuss the subject: Forbes Middle East, Arabian Business, Arabian Business 2. I'm not sure if the Forbes Middle East article is a press release although it's written like one. Arabian Business is a reliable source and both articles have known authors. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I have looked at the references you provided. The Forbes Middle East article fails as a PRIMARY source since the article indicates Katara Hospitality is credited as one of the authors and therefore the article is not intellectually independent. The first Arabian Business article fails for a number of reasons. First, there is no journalist credited with having authored the article. Second, it appears that the article was written by the CEO or by the marketing department of Katara since the headline states "CEO Hamad Al Mulla explains why". Finally, the article states "Katara Hospitality CEO Hamad Abdulla Al Mulla tells CEO Middle East during the celebration of the rebranding" which indicates that the information was provided during a marketing event and therefore the article cannot be considered independent and fails WP:ORGIND. The second Arabian Business article also fails WP:ORGIND since the article is part of public relations and only contains quotations and information provided by the company with no intellectually independent analysis or opinion. -- HighKing ++ 13:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – See source search parameters below under the company's former name. North America1000 12:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I looked through the first few pages and I'm still not seeing any references that meet the criteria for notability under the company's former name. -- HighKing ++ 14:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2017 (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.