Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treetops Executive Residences


 * 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. v/r - TP 23:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Treetops Executive Residences

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This was originally deleted under G11 "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". It was then created via the Articles for creation process. However, I do not see that despite the many references there is enough to show that this meets the guidelines for notability.

While I appreciate the work that has gone into this article, I feel that the provided references are far short of what we would expect to see in an article about a truly notable subject.

As I type, the following references are present in the article:
 * 1) Reviews on TripAdvisor"
 * 2) * Reviews can be added by anyone, so no reliability there
 * 3) "Customer Centre Initiative - Treetops Executive Residences"
 * 4) * It says "An advertising feature" - so not independent of the company
 * 5) "Great service behind SuperStars in the making"
 * 6) * A minor mention - that an assistant manager of guest services at the service apartment
 * 7) "Life in the Treetops"
 * 8) * This would not count as 'significant coverage'. Five questions refer to Treetops either in the question or in the answer ("Why did you choose to live in a serviced apartment?"; "How does life here differ from that back home?"; "Why did you choose the Treetops?"; "I was slightly taken aback at how courteous and helpful the guards at the front gate were when I came in. I’m used to getting the third degree about the nature of my visit."; "How did you go about furnishing your apartment?")
 * 9) "Its about serving you better"
 * 10) * The same document as number 2
 * 11) "Netting the Expat Dollar"
 * 12) * The general manager (one person quoted in the article) mentions using digitial marketing - not 'significant coverage'
 * 13) "HPB Silver Award Recipients 2010"
 * 14) * An award issued by the Health Promotion Board of Singapore - I'm not sure this meets the criteria for notable awards
 * 15) "Treetops awarded BCA Green Mark Gold Award 2010"
 * 16) * Again, I'm not sure whether Singapore's Building and Construction Authority's awards count as notable outside of Singapore
 * 17) "HPB Bronze Award Recipients 2008"
 * 18) * As for the HPB Silver Award
 * 19) "Property Focus"
 * 20) * This gives further information about the BCA Green Mark Award, again not the significant coverage required by the notability criteria
 * 21) "Earth Hour Organization Support 2011"
 * 22) * This confirms that they were a participant, but only as one name in a list of organisations involved
 * 23) "Energy conservation"
 * 24) * Talks about their energy conservation, but it is not the significant coverage about the residences as a whole

Although this sounds like nice serviced apartments, that is not enough! I feel that a better place for this article would be at AboutUs.org, Yellowikis, Wikicompany or MyWikiBiz.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  — Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ADVERT: 'advertisements masquerading as articles'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i understand that the article is put up for deletion, may i defend myself on this? 1) Wikipedia is a platform for info, and facts, acting as an encyclopedic reference; i have written this article based on facts and data i collated, though there are points that are read as sounding like an ad, may i know then how i can rephrase them so that it doesnt reflect as one? 2) Wikipedia is for constant updates and inputs of readers who know about a certain topic, so that they can continue adding on; in that case, why should it be considered for deletion almost like within one day after being approved, without letting more readers have the chance to add their knowledge in? 3) Notability - 1) Tripadvisor: what i understand is tripadvisor do screen and have a strict procedure of allowing postings; on what basis are reviews considered non-reliable? 2) the awards listed including HPB and BCA - these are two govt bodies in Singapore, then how should it be for it to be notable?

Alot of times, i see them in print but not listed on website, as such, then how can i prove their notability? I sincerely seek your kind understanding that i am not speaking on behalf or for on the organisation, it is more of a sincerity and determination to understand how i can write an article to ensure that it is notable? I believe alot of contributors who gets their articles rejected have the same question in their minds. Sincerely, we are trying to contribute to wikipedia because we have benefitted from it, and thus like to share our knowledge, but if it gets rejected and we do not know how we can rectify it, then we will just leave with this question forever in the mind. It is not just about one article, it is for many more articles to come that i write this in good faith. Hope this can be considered. Many thanks. --Shoppiee (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Shoppiee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I have left some advice on my talk page in response to your query there about this subject. However, I want to add that printed information can be used as references - it doesn't always have to be websites - Identifying reliable sources specifically states The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet..
 * Further, the verificability policy states The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability... Verifiability in this context means anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries.
 * So, if it is independent (i.e. not a press release, not an advert, not something written by the company), at a reliable source, it can still be used as a reference. If you could give some examples (here or on my talk page), I could give you more specific advice about specific references.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Phatomsteve

Thanks for your replies, have noted them. Would like to seek your advise on these then: i have found some print articles which i gather from their website: These articles i believe are scanned copies from magazine and not from direct source unless proven otherwise: http://treetops.com.sg/en/publication/59.html An article by The Edge magazine; http://treetops.com.sg/en/publication/60.html An article by Travellution magazine; http://treetops.com.sg/en/publication/48.html An article by TODAY newspaper;

2 other articles i manage to find: http://trendsideas.com/ViewArticle.aspx?article=14665&region=23 An article from Trends magazine; http://www.ourpagesonline.co.uk/flipBook/index.asp?ID=192 An article from Upward curve magazine;

Will these be better? I am trying hard to look for more sources, maybe in the meanwhile you can let me know if im on the right track. Thanks. --Shoppiee (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Shoppiee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Discussion on these sources is on the AfD's Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Treetops Executive Residences  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is about a long term hotel / service apartment for business travellers in Singapore.  Highly unusual circumstances would be needed to give such an establishment the kind of historical, cultural, or technical significance to become an encyclopedia subject.  Minor trade awards (HPB Silver Award for 2010) do not meet that standard.  Article is shot through with advertising: 60 percent of the project's land is landscaped with over 200 exotic plant species with green foliage all year round... Treetops provides a resort-style living in the heart of the city. Supermarkets, cinemas and the subway are round the corner and guests can easily commute to offices in the central business district with the daily complimentary shuttle bus service.... It became the first serviced residences in Singapore to include 'green' features in its premises to inculcate healthy living practices so as to create an ingenious style of enhanced living environment. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi pardon my lack of understanding. Does it mean if i rephrase it, it will be better? Im sorry if i have written it so much seemingly like an ad. I will amend on that, but for other reasons i do not quite understand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Mandarin_Singapore - why does this article be fine though it was put up for deletion as well? Is that any signifance for it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Centennial_Singapore - this article has listed on its restaurants and categories of rooms, and the only references made were to their website, why do they not have any issues either?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damenlou_Hotel - this article as well, significance of it?

Apologies, i hope you can understand i am not trying to involve other articles, but sincerely i do not understand whats the difference? I am not writing for the company like i mentioned, the style of writing my article was with references to these articles are with no issues but i truly do not understand why then these articles are ok?

I hope i am not seen as challenging anything, i am just confused. I sincerely hope you can shed some light on these so that i will know how i should write my article and avoid any unnecessary debates on it. I believe that is the least to everyone who writes an article hope for. Many thanks. --Shoppiee (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Shoppiee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I've not looked at those 3 articles, as they have no real bearing on the discussion about this article. It may be that they are better referenced than the Treetops article, in which case they are not a good comparison; it may be that they are not referenced or inadequately referenced - but again, that does not make a good comparison. It may be that they should be deleted - but we are not discussing those articles. We are discussing the Treetops article, and whether that should be kept or not.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See also: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2011 (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.