Talk:Dalata Hotel Group

Hotels Low‑importance

	Hotels portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

IProspectIE (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

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.

Notability

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

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)[reply]

Generally speaking I can see how individual brands within a hotel group could be notable and have their own articles. If they have individual notability that is. So far I don't see notability for the Clayton brand given. Also, there is clear COI editing going on here. Going for an AfD might be warranted. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 22:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jake Brockman. Thanks for the note/response. The COI patterns are indeed concerning. In terms of the NN question, the more I look at it, the more I think what we should do is move this content (which substantively deals with the Dalata group) to a title reflecting that content. Namely to Dalata Hotel Group (A title which, FYI, is red linked in several places). The product here (the Clayton brand) doesn't seem to meet the WP:PRODUCT or WP:CHAIN notability guidelines. However, perhaps the parent company does. (Certainly there is an amount of coverage around. And the ISEQ 20 listing and "Ireland's largest hotel group" claim would seem to be established). In short, unless there are other thoughts, I might move the title there, address any related promo BS, and monitor from there. Guliolopez (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guliolopez I am a bit in two minds with this. The way I see it, a paid editor (possibly their digital marketing agency) started a job and then we (the volunteer wikipedia editor community) finish a job they started half-heartedly. I don't really want to be their free resource and I don't think any of us should be their extension. I have noticed those patterns before elsewhere where half-baked corp articles are thrown out there by SPAs which are borderline ok and then volunteers spend their time to make them nice. This doesn't seem right... Independent of that, I agree if it is possible to establish notability of the parent without doubt, there should be an article for that. This should then mention the brands in the portfolio (of which Clayton is one) and Clayton Hotels should then redirect to Dalata. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't disagree. I am also in two minds. And dislike anything that seems to encourage/feed COI and PROMO SPA accounts. However, while I sometimes feel it perhaps should be, "original author is a dick" isn't (currently) a valid AfD criteria. Hence, dispassionately, were I to have happened-upon an AfD on this subject, my personal recommendation would have been a merge/redirect. And hence I can't really make myself open the AfD. What I will do however, if there are no other thoughts, is progress with the move of this title, rework the content to focus purely on the factual elements - and then monitor for any inappropriately promotional content or linking. As has been the case to date. Guliolopez (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have moved this article. To fit the parent company which, at least, doesn't fall foul of WP:PRODUCT issues. If you feel there are still notability issues, let me know. And I will open it up to AfD. If not, I will close this thread, remove the NN tag, and monitor for any continuing inappropriate BS and PROMO. Guliolopez (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see I come later to the discussion, but I hope all are OK if I update - I removed the notability tag, as this entity clearly is notable (largest player in one of Ireland's main industries, major employer and with wide and visible presence). I do agree that it should not have, as it once did (I landed here due to tidying in redirect space), articles for each brand and even individual hotels, but I can see no doubt about the business as a whole.

I do understand re. not "rewarding" questionable editing, but I always thought that the best way to do that is to take any value there is, and cut (all promo content) and polish to a good quality. Subvert any wrong intentions, and ensure appropriate coverage... SeoR (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with tag removal. Notability issues are addressed. Needs monitoring for any recurrence of COI/PROMO issues. Closing thread. Guliolopez (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable hotels" section

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:

I don't understand the purpose of the "notable hotels" section. How, for example, does it differ from the "hotels" section which immediately precedes it? Other than existing as a "tabular" version of it? How does that sit with the WP:USEPROSE guideline?
I don't understand the inclusion criteria of the "notable hotels" section. What is our list criteria or our notability criteria? The list members don't objectively meet this project's notability criteria (in that there are no articles for many and so WP:CSC doesn't apply). Which means we may be leaving it to an editor's own subjective criteria. How does that sit with the WP:LISTCRITERIA guideline?

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)[reply]

Well. In the 10 minutes it took me to write this mini-essay, it seems the section has been removed. And hence this is all largely moot. But, if the editor proposes to re-add the table, it might be worth making sure the inclusion/notability criteria is established. Before doing so. Guliolopez (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]