Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unique venues


 * 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. Consensus is that this fails WP:NOPROMO which is a showstopper. Notability takes a back seat to that policy. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Unique venues

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't feel WP:CORPDEPTH is met; all the references are promotional or trivial. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Thank you for the update, I tried to find new references after your suggestion from the find sources links above, I am amazed of what I found from books, HighBeam and others, there is a huge database of information. The company was established in 1986 therefore, I guess most of the material would be from pre-internet period. It's written about in many books but I added only where I was able to read the text, it's mentioned in almost every notable Hospitality book even from World Tourism Organization. Please review again and suggest improvements. Thank you DiamondDiana (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not meet WP:NCORP & significant RS coverage not found. Just an advertorial masquerading as an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is well sourced and have references from reliable sources passes WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRITE. Mia Watson (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This is essentially an advertisement. And the nature of the refeences are such that they cannot be used for showing notability Most of the references are their own press releases, saying we recommend X, published on X's web site. The rest are mentions or PR. Some are even on PRweb. I would like to know just whichreferences those sayingkeep thing are substantial and independent. I'd guess that their evaluation mistood "published in another organization's source" for "independent." If, say, the University of Maryland reports on its web site that this service rated them highly, it does not show anything more than their function in providing PR for other organizations.  DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There are 21 references and you are only emphasizing on PR and a university. It's 100% meets Wikipedia WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Look again, it's mentioned in books, newspapers, magazines etc. It's famous in three continents and is an old organization. I don't understand what is the criteria here on Wikipedia, I am reading other deletion discussions and this article is above and beyond those which hardly have any references. So, if something is mentioned in books, magazines etc this means they are not independent? Every company functions differently, some supply medical equipment while others supply food, so is this organization. So instead of focusing what this company offers please focus on references. Here are the links from HigBeam and Books, see how many reliable references it has as per Wikipedia generated links.
 * https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Unique+venues%22+-wikipedia
 * https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22Unique+venues%22

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This is what Wikipedia policy says and all references are independent of the subject. I hope you will have a deeper look, I don't want to overload the article with all references out there because I know it will become controversial as per Wikipedia policies. DiamondDiana (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * kuje akk generak statements, this is only meaningful when interpreted. Accepted interpretation varies in different fields--for companies, the interpretation is now quite narrow. But each case is decided individually,, with the variability inevitable in WP decision-making. But I will check again.  DGG ( talk ) 14:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate DiamondDiana (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲 水 13:54, 27 June 2018 (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.