Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super 8 Kingdom City


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Super 8 Kingdom City

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOTINHERITED. The news references are mainly local. Being the arrest site for a potentially notable (?) bank robber does not make the site itself notable. Being the number 1 rated hotel in a small town is not notable. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication of wp:notability. The Super 8 hotel chain directory is the place for this listing. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral !Vote First off- news references being mainly local is not an acceptable reason for deletion, GNG and all other notability guidelines make no distinction and there has never been a requirement that something has to be universally notable around a certain size geographic are. Unrelated to this !vote, the tag that the article needs cleaning up because I have a COI is ridiculous, I'm a retired editor coming back just to deal with this current crap, but when I made this article I made it known of my COI and was told it was acceptable as long as I stuck to the sources. I did stick to the sources and just because I have a COI does not mean I did something wrong and there is again no policy that restricts me from following current procedures and having an article about a place that I own. With that, I am sure this article will be deleted because of what I see is a vendetta by a small cabal against corporations that in their eyes are "non-notable" by default, one of them recently even got their proposal to restrict such articles shot down at Jimbo's page. This idea that deletion cleans up Wikipedia is ridiculous. Sum of all knowledge ring a bell?Camelbinky (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think these personal remarks and speculations are out of place here. Please see WP:FOC.  With regard to local coverage, here is the relevant section of WP:CORPDEPTH: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."  The COI tag has nothing to do with the stated grounds for this AfD.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, here's ome more personal remarks that are out of place- You dont know how to edit in Wikipedia, I have seen no depth of any actual real editing, but I have seen the beginnings of wiki-stalking on your part. I see ridiculous removal of information from the Tripadvisor page among others. I see a lack of AGF on several instances from you, and the refusal to respond to concerns I placed on your talk page along with you calling me a vandal for putting back info you deleted from another page. That is not vandalism, that is a dispute, which disputes go to the talk page for consensus. In case of lack of consensus, the info is by default left alone. You dont know the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia based on a look at your contributions. I suggest you do some real editing and learn them through experience instead of this crusade of yours, newbie.Camelbinky (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith, and don't attack other editors. "Biting back" is never acceptable; two wrongs don't make a right. Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ADV appears to be blatant advertising or at least violates WP:POV neutral point of view.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Advertising I agree, but explain what is a violation of POV in the article when everything is linked to a source and only states what the source states, please.97.88.87.68 (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If the sources provided show POV, then the article also can have POV violations.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If all sources show one POV, that doesn't mean that we can't have an article. But a lack of notability is a lack of notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Run-of-the-mill chain hotel without any un-inherited notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:00, 4 September 2012 (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.