Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COMO Hotels and Resorts

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. (non-admin closure) Ambrosiawater (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COMO Hotels and Resorts[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Previously deleted multiple times check log. Again a blatant advertisement, comes under G11 but i need more editor's attention on it. For me it seems a UDP or COI case. GermanKity (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GermanKity, thank you for the discussion. I have elected to write the article to expand on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hotels in line with the project's goals 1 and 2. I have written the article as objectively as possible, in a neutral point of view. As such, I struggle to see how the article qualifies as a blatant advertisement under G11 as I do not find any language that was written openly in a manner that appears promotional or advertisement-like. The subject, COMO Hotels and Resorts is a notable multinational company operating multiple hotels - something that I believe would be useful to be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hotels. Nearly all (bar one) of the cited sources are independent of the company; most come from articles featured in major magazines like Forbes, which I believe would suggest the subject qualifying for Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines. I assume on good faith in the review, but I do request a re-reviews on the page, verifying the page's objectivity and its value as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hotels. Additionally, on the claim of possible COI, I will state that I do not have any ties to the company or anyone related to the company in question. I am an editor interested in hotels and hospitality, and I hope this can be reflected through the contributions I've made in the past mostly related to hotels and hospitality. Keep Okadiputera (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles by Forbes contributors are not necessarily independent, but there are enough good references from reliable sources to establish notability. I don't think the article is an advertisement. Unless something goes spectacularly wrong at a luxury hotel, media coverage is likely to be predominantly favourable, and we can't use bad reviews on TripAdvisor as a reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with rewrite to remove a couple of instances of puffery and lots of overlinking. Cites enough sources in my view. Contribution history of page creator seems legit, i.e. not a single-purpose account. (Como The Treasury hotel in Western Australia is arguably notable enough in its own right as it got plenty of media coverage locally when it opened.) Meticulo (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as far as G11 is concerned. Further debate on the subject's notability may warranted, but that hasn't been directly questioned by the nominator. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BUT it does need a bit of a prune. Aoziwe (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2021 (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.