Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle Resorts & Hotels

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Resorts & Hotels

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

Non notable hotel chain, PROD removed 12 April with note: "Removed note for deletion, added external references and sources. More will follow shortly. Thank you." On link to a directory listing added, also an EL to the company website. Nothing there to establish notability Jezhotwells (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article makes no real claim of notability. Pburka (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable to me; gets more than 10 pages of hits at Google News. A company which has two dozen properties in three countries sounds like a claim of notability to me. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps MelanieN could look at WP:CORP and say which criteria are met, I am sorry but "looks notable to me" is hardly a valid argument. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the huge number of news hits (most of which are not full-scale, in-depth articles), the criterion would be "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advertorials and passing mentions don't signify anything. What is needed is substantive coverage. Also read the footnote: ""Source" on Wikipedia can refer to the work itself, the author of the work, and/or the publisher of the work. For notability purposes, sources must be completely unrelated to each other to be "multiple". A story reprinted in multiple newspapers is still one source (one publication). A series of articles by the same journalist is still one source (one person). Different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher)." Jezhotwells (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am well aware of all that. It might have been courteous to look at my sources before dismissing them, or lecturing me about sources. None of the seven articles I posted here is an "advertorial" or a reprint of the same article, and they come from three different independent Reliable Source newspapers. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did look actually, let us see:

"The second quarter was challenging as we continue to see weak demand and daily rate compression at unprecedented levels, especially in Hawai'i," said Alan Mattson, president and chief operating officer of The Castle Group. Substantial coverage? Recycled press release
Clear advertorial
No substantial coverage of the company, recycled press release
"Castle Group expanding abroad as net income rises 506 percent Castle Group Inc., the Honolulu-based parent company of Castle Resorts & Hotels, reported first-quarter net income rose fivefold to $99,658 as it benefited from the addition of new properties, better occupancy and a gain on foreign exchange." No substantial coverage, recycled press release
No substantial coverage, recycled press release
No substantial coverage, recycled press release
7 No substantial coverage, recycled press release

no substance = no notability. Non-notable minor hotel management company, un-encyclopaedic. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already pointed out that none of these links amounts to "substantial coverage". (Although I challenge your description of source #2 as an Advertorial; it is an item from a travel column, written by a Los Angeles Times staff writer.) You are right, there is no substantial coverage. But WP:CORP permits notability to be established by "multiple independent sources" in the absence of, or as a substitute for, substantial in-depth coverage. You asked me which criteria the company meets under WP:CORP; I have cited the relevant passage from WP:CORP in reply. You have expressed your opinion. Let's see what others say. --MelanieN (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2011 (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.