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.
Comment I created this article. I felt that being the largest independent hotel operator in Barbados and Barbados' largest hotel industry employer would swing it. They have also had a fair amount of press coverage. Happy to hear opinions
Uhooep (
talk)
22:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm fairly certain owning 7 hotels isn't enough around here per se for inherent notability - there's always a largest operator when the geographical area is small enough, but then it's of local concern rather than notable (for ever) in a global encyclopedia (sure, it's a country)...
Separately, we're
WP:NOTDIRECTORY and notability (which isn't clear to me) is not the only grounds for deletion, but promotion and
WP:NOT generally, for example
WP:PROMOTION...local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts..etc etc. Widefox;
talk23:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep This article needs work and expansion, but the cited references (including The Times, the Financial Times, and the London Evening Standard) are sufficient to pass GNG. --
MelanieN (
talk)
01:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep largest independent hotel operator in Barbados, a country with a significant tourism industry, backed up by sufficient sources which to me justify inclusion.
Uhooep (
talk)
09:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete There is a very simply requirement for meeting the criteria for establishing notability. Reasons such as "largest hotel operator in Barbados" and similar are not sufficient. There must be references and a topic must have two "intellectually independent" reliable references as per GNG and
WP:NCORP. A number of the Keep !voters have used reasons such as "substantial coverage", "sufficient to pass GNG" and "backed up by sufficient sources" but none have responded to Widefox (correctly) pointing out that those references fails the criteria for establishing notability.
Leaving aside the obvious business listings in Bloomberg, financial results, announcements of appointments and announcements from associated companies and bidders (as they fail
WP:CORPDEPTH and/or
WP:ORGIND we are left with the following references...
This travelweekly.co.uk reference is based on a company announcement (the headline confirms it was an announcement from Elegant Hotels), is not intellectually independent. Fails
WP:ORGIND.
This follow-up reference repeats information provided by a company announcement and also fails
WP:ORGIND.
This third reference is also based on a company announcement, is not intellectually independent and also fails
WP:ORGIND.
this thetimes.co.uk reference relies on unattributed information provided to the newspaper which is merely repeated, fails
WP:RS. The reference contains no independent opinion or analysis, fails
WP:ORGIND.
This nationnews.com reference is based on a company announcement and company-provided information. Fails
WP:ORGIND.
This next reference from the same source is based on a ceremony marking the completion of students who finished their internships with the company. The article relies entirely on interviews with the students and quotations from the human resources director. The reference is not intellectually independent and fails
WP:ORGIND and/or
WP:CORPDEPTH.
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.
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.
Comment I created this article. I felt that being the largest independent hotel operator in Barbados and Barbados' largest hotel industry employer would swing it. They have also had a fair amount of press coverage. Happy to hear opinions
Uhooep (
talk)
22:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm fairly certain owning 7 hotels isn't enough around here per se for inherent notability - there's always a largest operator when the geographical area is small enough, but then it's of local concern rather than notable (for ever) in a global encyclopedia (sure, it's a country)...
Separately, we're
WP:NOTDIRECTORY and notability (which isn't clear to me) is not the only grounds for deletion, but promotion and
WP:NOT generally, for example
WP:PROMOTION...local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts..etc etc. Widefox;
talk23:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep This article needs work and expansion, but the cited references (including The Times, the Financial Times, and the London Evening Standard) are sufficient to pass GNG. --
MelanieN (
talk)
01:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep largest independent hotel operator in Barbados, a country with a significant tourism industry, backed up by sufficient sources which to me justify inclusion.
Uhooep (
talk)
09:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete There is a very simply requirement for meeting the criteria for establishing notability. Reasons such as "largest hotel operator in Barbados" and similar are not sufficient. There must be references and a topic must have two "intellectually independent" reliable references as per GNG and
WP:NCORP. A number of the Keep !voters have used reasons such as "substantial coverage", "sufficient to pass GNG" and "backed up by sufficient sources" but none have responded to Widefox (correctly) pointing out that those references fails the criteria for establishing notability.
Leaving aside the obvious business listings in Bloomberg, financial results, announcements of appointments and announcements from associated companies and bidders (as they fail
WP:CORPDEPTH and/or
WP:ORGIND we are left with the following references...
This travelweekly.co.uk reference is based on a company announcement (the headline confirms it was an announcement from Elegant Hotels), is not intellectually independent. Fails
WP:ORGIND.
This follow-up reference repeats information provided by a company announcement and also fails
WP:ORGIND.
This third reference is also based on a company announcement, is not intellectually independent and also fails
WP:ORGIND.
this thetimes.co.uk reference relies on unattributed information provided to the newspaper which is merely repeated, fails
WP:RS. The reference contains no independent opinion or analysis, fails
WP:ORGIND.
This nationnews.com reference is based on a company announcement and company-provided information. Fails
WP:ORGIND.
This next reference from the same source is based on a ceremony marking the completion of students who finished their internships with the company. The article relies entirely on interviews with the students and quotations from the human resources director. The reference is not intellectually independent and fails
WP:ORGIND and/or
WP:CORPDEPTH.
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.