This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hotels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the
hospitality industry, including
hotels,
motels,
resorts, and
destination spas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HotelsWikipedia:WikiProject HotelsTemplate:WikiProject HotelsHotels articles
Notability is still in question as the AfD closed as no consensus. If it had closed as "Keep" then the removal of the Notability tag would be justified. Right now, the notability of this company is still in question.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
19:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Agree completely. In fact, this is probably the most appropriate use of
Template:Notability possible. We held a discussion and could not decide if the article is notable or not. The sources added were not sufficient to carry the AfD discussion. If you're contesting whether the article is notable, there's only one sure way to decide: open another AfD.
John from Idegon (
talk)
21:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Marriott image
This image has been removed by three separate editors by now. Please seek consensus on the Talk page to restore it. In my opinion, the image is not relevant and can be perceived as promotional.
The first one because its presence was not explained by text, which is understandable and the other because they don't believe the article should exist at all and therefore pointily wish to diminish it if they can. We have a free image from Commons of a hotel the company manage with a source confirming it. Managing hotels is their business. The image is highly relevant to the article.
Philafrenzy (
talk)
22:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Photos should illustrate some aspect of the copy of the article. There is nothing in the article about this particular property. There is nothing to distinguish this property from any other property they have ran. And finally, management contracts are finite. There is no guarantee they'll be running it this time next year.
John from Idegon (
talk)
23:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The copy is in the caption. I will add it into the body too. Your other points are irrelevant. It can be removed if they stop running it. This is a freely licenced photo from Commons about a hotel that they run. The presumption is that such a photo be used unless there is a very good reason why not and we have no other relevant photos. It doesn't have to pass some sort of super test like a fair use image. Please accept that the article is staying and help to improve it.
It's not free, it's copyrighted. It can be used on this article, but you have given no sources or policy that indicates it should. So until you can persuade the editors here or get other editors involved, it's out.
John from Idegon (
talk)
00:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Oh, and if you add copy from the same source you used in the caption, I'll revert that too. Not real interested in making Wikipedia a branch of this or any other company's PR effort.
John from Idegon (
talk)
00:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hotels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the
hospitality industry, including
hotels,
motels,
resorts, and
destination spas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HotelsWikipedia:WikiProject HotelsTemplate:WikiProject HotelsHotels articles
Notability is still in question as the AfD closed as no consensus. If it had closed as "Keep" then the removal of the Notability tag would be justified. Right now, the notability of this company is still in question.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
19:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Agree completely. In fact, this is probably the most appropriate use of
Template:Notability possible. We held a discussion and could not decide if the article is notable or not. The sources added were not sufficient to carry the AfD discussion. If you're contesting whether the article is notable, there's only one sure way to decide: open another AfD.
John from Idegon (
talk)
21:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Marriott image
This image has been removed by three separate editors by now. Please seek consensus on the Talk page to restore it. In my opinion, the image is not relevant and can be perceived as promotional.
The first one because its presence was not explained by text, which is understandable and the other because they don't believe the article should exist at all and therefore pointily wish to diminish it if they can. We have a free image from Commons of a hotel the company manage with a source confirming it. Managing hotels is their business. The image is highly relevant to the article.
Philafrenzy (
talk)
22:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Photos should illustrate some aspect of the copy of the article. There is nothing in the article about this particular property. There is nothing to distinguish this property from any other property they have ran. And finally, management contracts are finite. There is no guarantee they'll be running it this time next year.
John from Idegon (
talk)
23:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The copy is in the caption. I will add it into the body too. Your other points are irrelevant. It can be removed if they stop running it. This is a freely licenced photo from Commons about a hotel that they run. The presumption is that such a photo be used unless there is a very good reason why not and we have no other relevant photos. It doesn't have to pass some sort of super test like a fair use image. Please accept that the article is staying and help to improve it.
It's not free, it's copyrighted. It can be used on this article, but you have given no sources or policy that indicates it should. So until you can persuade the editors here or get other editors involved, it's out.
John from Idegon (
talk)
00:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Oh, and if you add copy from the same source you used in the caption, I'll revert that too. Not real interested in making Wikipedia a branch of this or any other company's PR effort.
John from Idegon (
talk)
00:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply