Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intown Suites

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. John254 03:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intown Suites[edit]

Non-notable hotel chain OGLY (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. 131 locations in 21 states would seem to be a notable enough chain -- and there are a couple of reliable sources in the article, so I'd say more might exist. I would trim the criticism section, though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ten Pound Hammer Jonathan^T•@•C 22:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this article when I saw the niche on Wikipedia. There are some Wikipedia articles on companies with fewer than 10 franchises. I don't see how a company with over 100 could possibly not qualify. The name Intown Suites may not be as well known as Holiday Inn, but it doesn't need to be to qualify. Tatterfly (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Clearly notable. Wikidemo (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Improve neutrality: The problem with this article is not a notability but rather a neutrality issue, which is in no way, shape, or form, grounds for deletion. The criticism section comes down hard on the chain, and there must be an equal number of positive statements to balance this out. Yes, Intown suites does get a bad rap on the internet, but I have stayed at multiple locations myself, and only have good things to say. As a black woman traveling alone, Intown Suites has treated me better than many other hotel chains with a better reputation in online reviews. There could be something said about that, and someone should have sources to back it up. All the negative accusations listed here go on at poorly managed franchises of all hotel chains. Whoever wrote this article or section must have wanted to vilify the company using these inevitable reports.Shaliya waya (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No evidence is provided to lack of notability. 328 google news hits. --Smashville^BONK! 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on neutrality: I just looked at the history of this article. It was a single user, Tatterfly, who created this article, and has made all the significant edits ever since. No one else has really added any information. This single user, perhaps, had a bad experience staying at Intown Suites, and wanted to bash the chain. When only one person is involved in an article, you have these kinds of problems. If more people get involved, this could be a better article. I have had positive experiences with Intown Suites. I am trying right now to find more sources of additional information that can be used to improve the article. Shaliya waya (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2007 (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.