Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moveandstay


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Moveandstay

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable online company lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Although, as the article points out, its name has appeared in some books and newspapers, I have not found anything beyond passing or list-type mentions (e.g., as in this travel book, or the one sentence about Moveandstay in this piece from bkmagazine.com), not substantial coverage of the company itself. Then you've got sources like this from a website called Gavroche.com, which reads like an advertisement: "Have a look at the website you will find a wide selection of rentals... Organize your holiday quietly with Move and Stay!" In sum, none of this amounts to significant coverage of the company itself from multiple independent reliable sources. PROD contested without comment.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 18:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. As noted above, no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. While the company's service may be novel, that doesn't mean the company is inherently notable. —C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange... there is a systematic deletion of the references I input... it seems that someone do not want the Wikipedia main editor to see these books...

I have given the references of at least 20 books(guides and travel + business books) that were talking about Moveandstay as a reliable source... Including Lonely planets (see http://books.google.com/books?q=moveandstay.com&btnG=Search+Books)

Our service is 9 years old and we are the number 1 provider of serviced apartments and serviced offices in the world

Please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efauvel (talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Be aware that you may be editing against out guidelines. Please read Conflict of interest. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Oe, I do not know what to do...

1. You gave me an example of article to get inspiration from and then I used a neutral tone and gave references for this article. 2. Someone (not you) tell me that it is advertising and delete the references 3. Then one editor helped to edit this article by bolding Moveandstay main word in first paragraph, removing some section and added other links. 4. I then put more references such as travel and business books and these are deleted again.

Please help me because I really do not know now how to comply with Wikipedia policy. If Wikipedia remove all travel books references and some neutral tones sentences, of course this can be taken as advertising. Let me know, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efauvel (talk • contribs) 10:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC) --Efauvel (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Moveandstay, where I've made comments about what the aricle needs for improvement. —C.Fred (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Efauvel, try reading the various links and pages that I others have pointed out to you. You say you want to comply with Wikipedia's policy yet I get the impression that you're not even reading any of these pages.. after all, you still aren't signing your posts even after it's been explained to you twice how to do this. In fact it's become quite clear that your only intention here is to advertise "your" company. As you stated in your post above: "Our service is 9 years old and we are the number 1 provider...", that statement is why I pointed you to the Conflict of interest guideline. What it means is that because you seem to have a close connection with the subject it's probably not a good idea for you to be editing this article at all. -- &oelig; &trade; 05:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Well, the question, which you haven't yet answered, is why your company should meet WP:CORP.  This generally requires that it have been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."  Yes, Fodor's and Lonely Planet are reliable sources.  But they mention tons of things briefly, and a hole-in-the-wall restaurant isn't encyclopedically notable because Fodor's listed it among a dozen other restaurants as places to eat in some town.  And if five travel guides all list the same dozen restaurants because that's all there is in this particular town, the restaurants have still not received significant coverage.  Now, does Fodor's have a two-page section about a restaurant?  Then you could at least make an argument.  So if you can explain how your company has received "significant coverage"—that is, coverage of some substantial depth—in a reliable source, I'll be happy to listen. P.S., looks like I cross-posted with C.Fred, but I think the message is the same.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 17:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP is not a directory and a spot-checking of the refs finds only directory/roundup-of-services/capsule/annotated listings, not in-depth reporting. "we are the number 1 provider of serviced apartments and serviced offices in the world" is a strong claim of notability (our Serviced apartment article says there are something like 20,000 such operators!). Prove it with specific cite from a reliable source. DMacks (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A website cited as reference in more than 30 travel and business books such as Lonely Planet is not good enough to be noticed by Wikipedia users? (I can give you the references if you wish... they were approved by one editor and then deleted by another one) We have also article from Washington Post. We list also 16,484 Serviced Apartments and 10,392 Serviced Offices. We do not have an article about this and nor would we put it on Wikipedia as it would be clearly seen as advertising. Thank you to let me know.--Efauvel (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  01:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Although mentioned in a number of sources, it does not appear that coverage is substantial.-- Pink Bull  05:28, 11 April 2010 (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.