Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotel Carbon Measurement Initiative

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. I was all set to close this as "no consensus" but then started looking into the copyright problems noted by John Nagle and Stuartyeates in the discussion. The verbatim copying in the article, both from cited sources and from the sites noted below, is both pervasive and foundational. It cannot be eliminated without a complete rewrite, and a merger of this information in its current state to any other article would just spread the problem. Anyone is welcome to try to create a fresh article on the topic (or to include information about the topic elsewhere) without all the copy/paste from other Web sites, but this article cannot be allowed to stand in its current state. Deor (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Carbon Measurement Initiative

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

publicity for a hotel PR effort; no clear notability DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ keep 3. [1], [2], [3], [4]. ~~Not a "PR effort,"~~ thoroughly notable. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sammy1339: It was written by a paid editor, and is clearly a PR effort. Number 5 7 14:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I just looked at the author's contributions. Unbelievable. How on earth has this person not been blocked already? --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~Merge per below. Much of the text of the article comes from this FAQ: [5]. Arguably, it's a copyvio. I'm looking at this because that editor came up on WP:AN/I. Some of that editor's articles are OK, and some are on non-notable subjects. This seems to be one of the latter. John Nagle (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-copyvio, encyclopedic content (if there's any left) into World Travel and Tourism Council. Miniapolis 23:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge proposal. If this is an activity of that council, put it in there. John Nagle (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's pure non-neutral PR cruft. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyright infringement of https://membres.tourisme-montreal.org/fichiers/Docs/Hotel%20Carbon%20Measurement%20Initiative%20Methodology%20FINAL.pdf Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the comments to merge or delete as copyright infringement. The methodology was developed by 2 industry bodies (WTTC and ITP) so it wouldn't be right to merge with the WTTC page. The Tourism Montreal organisation does not have any copyright over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.180.192.10 (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep This appears a credible topic and its notability is distinct from both hotels and from carbon equivalency (although overlapping both). As such, we should keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (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.