This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
I tagged this for notability a few weeks back. This was prompted by a few concerns (including, being perfectly open about it, this concern raised by another editor on ANI and a pattern of quasi-promotional edits by the apparent COI account that sought to justify and introduce artificial/promotional links to these articles). Having since attempted to verify if GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH are met, I am still not satisfied that they are. And bluntly, when you read the lead/intro to this article, it seems pretty clear why that is the case - not even the lead deals with the titular subject! It says "Clayton Hotels is a brand name", and then the rest of the lead deals with the company that owns/operates that brand. Similarly, when seeking reliable independent sources about Clayton, all the top news and related results do not deal with the brand itself, but the company that owns the brand. Namely: Dalata. For example, this Irish Times, Journal, and FFT coverage all focus on Dalata. The Clayton brand ( the product) is not the primary subject of this article - because it is not the primary subject of the coverage which supports this article!
I would be interested in hearing other thoughts, but - if this content is to be kept at all - I would imagine that it should be moved to a title which reflects the content, the lead, and the subject of the coverage. Namely: Dalata.
If there is consensus on a move, I will support it. Otherwise, if there are no other thoughts, I will move this discussion to AfD. Guliolopez ( talk) 21:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I have some concerns about the newly added "notable hotels" section. Most of them (in all honesty) coloured by the previous concerns raised about the notability of the subject here and of its constituent hotels (see for example the RfD discussion and NN discussion above). And also perhaps by the PROMO/COI concerns raised over time (see for example the ANI some time ago). Without raking over those old coals however, I will simply highlight my current concerns as follows:
Unless we have a clear intent for the table, and established criteria for inclusion, I'm not sure we should have such a table myself. Guliolopez ( talk) 15:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
I tagged this for notability a few weeks back. This was prompted by a few concerns (including, being perfectly open about it, this concern raised by another editor on ANI and a pattern of quasi-promotional edits by the apparent COI account that sought to justify and introduce artificial/promotional links to these articles). Having since attempted to verify if GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH are met, I am still not satisfied that they are. And bluntly, when you read the lead/intro to this article, it seems pretty clear why that is the case - not even the lead deals with the titular subject! It says "Clayton Hotels is a brand name", and then the rest of the lead deals with the company that owns/operates that brand. Similarly, when seeking reliable independent sources about Clayton, all the top news and related results do not deal with the brand itself, but the company that owns the brand. Namely: Dalata. For example, this Irish Times, Journal, and FFT coverage all focus on Dalata. The Clayton brand ( the product) is not the primary subject of this article - because it is not the primary subject of the coverage which supports this article!
I would be interested in hearing other thoughts, but - if this content is to be kept at all - I would imagine that it should be moved to a title which reflects the content, the lead, and the subject of the coverage. Namely: Dalata.
If there is consensus on a move, I will support it. Otherwise, if there are no other thoughts, I will move this discussion to AfD. Guliolopez ( talk) 21:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I have some concerns about the newly added "notable hotels" section. Most of them (in all honesty) coloured by the previous concerns raised about the notability of the subject here and of its constituent hotels (see for example the RfD discussion and NN discussion above). And also perhaps by the PROMO/COI concerns raised over time (see for example the ANI some time ago). Without raking over those old coals however, I will simply highlight my current concerns as follows:
Unless we have a clear intent for the table, and established criteria for inclusion, I'm not sure we should have such a table myself. Guliolopez ( talk) 15:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)