Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiesta Inn

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.

The result was keep, without prejudice to the merge discussion that has already opened. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fiesta Inn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, claims notability but none shown in sourcing and should probably at most if kept be merged with overall parent corp, I believe this fails WP:ORG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YOU DON'T CONSIDER A HOTEL CHAIN WITH 61 HOTELS TO BE SIGNIFICANT? I linked to the website too - you can see the hotels there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Grossman (talk • contribs) 01:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I consider this discussion closed, so I'm going to delete the deletion notice now, unless anyone objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Grossman (talk • contribs) 01:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't find them notable, please review WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG this isn't a directory for a business and please do not remove the deletion template this discussion will last seven days before a consensus is made. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so why does a hotel such as Embassy Suites have its own web page? They have about 200 locations. Even individual hotels have their own websites. I just can't believe such a major chain as Fiesta Inn does not have its own web page!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Grossman (talk • contribs) 01:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take some time and read the policies already linked please! It will only help with your understanding. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Grupo Posadas. This is a well-known large hotel chain in Mexico, with presence in most of the country's tourist locations. There are plenty of travel guides that mention the hotels and a cursory search shows that the hotels are commonly reviewed in well-known travel sites. Also as WP:PRODUCT of a company that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. I will however note that there doesn't seem to be enough material there, and the company's article is small as well. So I think a redirect would be best, as we do with a lot of product articles as alternative to deletion. The author(s) can easily create a section in that article for what little material on the hotels there is, with no prejudice to expanding to standalone article when the amount of information merits it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support FreeRangeFrog! I guess a redirect would be OK - certainly preferable to a deletion. I'm trying to expand the Fiesta Inn article too. Larry Grossman (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everyone - what do you think about the article now? Have I made enough improvements for a stand-alone article? If not, maybe could merge with Group Posadas as FreeRangeFrog suggested. I don't know how to merge articles though. Thanks. Larry Grossman (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everyone - would it be OK if I remove the consideration for deletion notice now that I've updated the article? Thank you. Larry Grossman (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a better question is - would it be OK to close out this discussion now and consider that the consensus is for keeping the article now that I have made the requested improvements? Larry Grossman (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been open now for over two weeks. I believe I have made the requested improvements, so it seems like the consensus is to keep the article as a stand-alone as improved. I therefore intend to do a non-admin closure of this discussion soon and remove the notice in the article that the article is under consideration for deletion. Please let me know if you object to my doing a non-admin closure of this discussion at this time. Thank you. Larry Grossman (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is a redirect and a delete rationale. I'm not sure why this hasn't been commented on more but I'd prefer if we have a more thorough discussion. Let me get another editor to make sure this is listed correctly. Sorry to drag all this out for you, I know that's a frustrating thing to go through. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you can see the post [[1]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to a new section in Grupo Posadas. This will help to bolster the Grupo Posadas article, together with the additional refs supplied for Fiesta Inn, will allow the notability tag to be removed from Grupo Posadas, and provide the right level of coverage for both organizations. In this way anyone searching for info about Fiesta Inn will still easily find it without giving undue weight to it. —Baldy Bill (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the best outcome is to merge both articles. Diego (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Funny ^Pika! 19:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete, notability must be shown, but has not; no strong sourcing. Merging with parent is optional, though.Editor400 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck sockpuppet vote. See here. MSJapan (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Merge to Grupo Posadas~~ The topic has received enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, but since the Grupo Posadas article is a stub-class article, it may make sense to include information in one place. Source examples for Fiesta Inn include, but are not limited to (some are non-English): [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. These can be used to improve and expand information about the topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per above ... and may I ask, why was this AfD, with a clear consensus to merge, relisted yet again? Ravenswing 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - and redirect to Grupo Posadas ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and disappointed I rather expected North to come up with a better argument. I mean, your comment shows that you do look for sources and do all the right things, but your conclusion follows no policy or anything. The stub status of Grupo Posadas is utterly irrelevant to this article. Though I notice that that can be easily expanded on its own merits. But we're talking about Fiesta Inn here and North has already done the work for me, but I guess i'll just reiterate it.

FIESTA INN CELEBRATING INDUSTRY MILESTONES - Arizona Republic

Fiesta Inn begins work on new conference center - East Valley Tribune

Tempe's Fiesta Inn sold, update planned - Phoenix Business Journal

Recibe el Fiesta Inn Distintivo H - Periodico AM

This is only a tiny, tiny sampling of the available sources. The arguments to merge above have no basis in policy and, indeed, seem to give evidence of notability and how this article should be kept. Silver seren^C 20:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After consideration, I have revised my !vote above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Apologies if I offended you at all. Silver seren^C 09:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as Silver seren above, some basic research shows notability, but the article does need work. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable chain, significant size. Merge discussion can continue outside AfD, no delete votes aside from nominator.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pls. also note that I am working to further improve the article and, indeed, incorporate the references noted above by other commentators.Larry Grossman (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with Ravenwswing's assertion above that there is a clear consensus to merge. If you tabulate the above votes, there are more keeps than merge. Please note that Grupo Posadas recently sold off two of its brands, Caesar Park and Caesar Business,^[1] which illustrates why brands should have their own articles, and I doubt almost anyone would have insisted that Grupo Posada's now defunct Mexicana should not have had it's own Wikipedia entry.Larry Grossman (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

^ http://www.hotelnewsnow.com/Articles.aspx/8694/Accors-Caesar-deal-key-to-Americas-expansion

[1] ttp://www.hotelnewsnow.com/Articles.aspx/8694/Accors-Caesar-deal-key-to-Americas-expansion

[1]