Talk:Yotel

Deletion

Here are 2 main reasons the deletion of this article:

1. It is written like an advertisement. The only main information is that rooms features "en suite bathrooms, flat screen televisions, free Wi-Fi, and 24 hour room service" and the locations of the hotels. See Wikipedia:Advertisements. 2. Most of the article is a "history" list. It needs more information that isn't a list.

Please fix these problems, or, if nothing is done within 48 hours, I will propose deletion again.Beeshoney (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are reasons for editing the article, not for deletion. Yotel clearly passes our inclusion guidelines with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia works on the basis that editors who see problems with articles either fix them themselves or put on maintenance tags to alert people to the need for editing rather than order others to do the work. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I know nothing about Yotel, so I can't edit the article. Also, I will see if this article is improved in the coming weeks by other editors. If it isn't, I will again propose deletion, because simply putting maintenance tags can leave an article having no edits for months.Beeshoney (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit the article yourself if you've a problem with it. All facts have citations. The history tab has full citations. You find more citations yourself if you can. Thus, deletion is inappropriate. richardc020 (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is, this article has very little main information, as most of it is a list. It's written like an advertisement, as it simply lists the "history" of the hotel. Also, from your original creation of this article, I think you need to improve on your English before you start editing Wikipedia. Beeshoney (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WTGR Beeshoney, if anyone needs to think about whether they should be editing Wikipedia it is you rather than Richardc020. There's no place for such an aggressive approach, you need to spend a bit more time rereading guidelines on assuming good faith and bite-yness - "Do not be hostile toward fellow editors; newcomers in particular. Remember to assume good faith and respond to problematic edits in a clear and polite manner." As you've been told repeatedly - there is nothing wrong with Yotel's basic notability - an international chain started by a high-profile businessman who's notable enough to have an article in his own right, with plenty of coverage in reputable third-party sources - eg the Telegraph. That's what determines whether an article gets deleted or not. Merely being ad-like or badly written is not a reason to delete, but a reason to copyedit it to an acceptable standard. And I don't buy your argument refusing to edit the article because you know nothing about Yotel - if an article's content is so bad that it needs urgent attention, then you don't need to know anything about the subject to sort out the egregious problems.
Sure, corporate articles are always difficult, because both advertising and encyclopaedia articles can contain a lot of the same material - dates and facts about facilities for instance. But having a lot of material in common with promotional material doesn't necessarily make an article any less encyclopaedic - see eg Burj Al Arab or the GA Shamrock Hotel. FWIW I understand your concern Beeshoney, but I don't think this article is sufficently advert-like to be a problem. Yes it could be construed as a bit promotional, but not so as to be an urgent problem - and certainly not enough to deserve deletion. If you don't think that tagging will resolve things, then you could always ask members of WikiProject Hotels for help, since they will have most experience of striking the right balance in this kind of article. I will drop them a line, along with the Article Rescue Squadron - calling in help is much more constructive than simply deleting an article which passes the notability tests. Le Deluge (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Le Deluge, for the rational vote. I'm glad to see that Beeshoney wrote "Here are 2 main reasons the deletion of this article" which is such good English. Richardc020 (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have gone ahead and added a couple of new references to the article here and there, along with some information. The prose in some sections could still use some work, but the references now show the subject to be clearly notable. Feel free to contact the Article Rescue Squadron again if you ever need some help with improving articles. Silverseren^C 17:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your additions are great. Thank you so much for the work. Richardc020 (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Head office

On a more constructive note - I see the website still lists 9 George St as the head office, but when I was last there the YO! sign was no longer there, and most of the group companies seem to have moved to Farringdon/Old St area. Anyone know what's going on? Le Deluge (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Terrace?

Maybe it's me but I have no idea where there is a terrace in this picture. Someone want to help me out? A google image search shows nothing like the picture here.