Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawthorn 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 of the nomination was keep. Mackensen (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawthorn Suites

Page created by Plin whose sole contributions to Wikipedia are spam advertising a number of hotels. The hotel group mentioned here is small and unnotable per WP:CORP. The content is of little or no encyclopedic interest. Pascal.Tesson 15:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC) I stand corrected. I got blinded by the spam hunt and retract this nomination. Pascal.Tesson 02:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to U.S. Franchise Systems, Inc., if that article is kept. Otherwise delete. --Allen 15:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Youngamerican and Choalbaton below. Even if Hawthorn Suites are themselves small as Pascal.Tesson says, their association with something huge makes them notable, just like we keep an article about a band that's only notable because one member went on to form a more famous band. --Allen 04:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There may well be reasons why this is a notable company, but those reasons aren't stated and there has been plenty of time now for the initial poster to have added something.--MichaelMaggs 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 19:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Large chain of hotels. The concerns expressed here are valid, but should be addressed via requests for cleanup, expansion, etc. and not deletion. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep A well known division of one of the largest two or three hotel companies in the world. If this was a Star Wars article there would be dozens of people defending it, but Wikipedia's business coverage is pretty pathetic so it's no surprise that most people here don't know what they are talking about. Choalbaton 04:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No notability stated or implied, or documented, in article. Fails WP:CORP. Tychocat 14:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep 3.7 MILLION hits on google. This AFD must be a joke! Will McDonalds be listed on AFD next? Definitely needs to be listed as a stub. I did some minor wikifying on the article. Royalbroil 04:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment The "3.7 million" Ghits that Royalbroil reports appear to be either individual hotel websites or reservations-websites. It might be preferrable to document the chain's notability per WP:CORP rather than complain about the afd nomination or make accusatory remarks about noms you don't like. And speaking of Ghits, McDonald's comes back with over 21 million, suggesting context for Hawthorn Suites. Tychocat 05:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

ReplyThank you for you patience. Sometimes I'm amazed at what shows up at AfD. Sometimes the content to look through is too large, like this case. You're right about having quite a few Ghits for individual hotels. "..., Hawthorn Suites are some of the key players in the midscale category" [1] according to CNN.com. The quote needs to be read in context. Royalbroil 17:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Another Reply The chain has been ranked in the Franchise 500 since 2002, and was listed at #476 for the last ranking in 2005. [2] --Royalbroil 17:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of my replies: The first reply is directed towards point #1 of WP:CORP, and the second reply should satisfy point #2 of WP:CORP. Sorry if my comments were taken as a personal attack, Pascal, because that was not my intention. I have never had contact with the nominator before (to the best of my knowledge). I will read WP:CIVIL 3 times and WP:No Personal Attacks 5 times as my penance. --Royalbroil 00:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Any major hotel chain merits an article. Vegaswikian 00:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep per vegas, and it is a growing hotel chain, so there may be more to add in the future.  Dure  (T)X(E)X(C) 02:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep notability now asserted and demonstrated. COuld still use some clean-up and wikification but no need to delete. Eluchil404 22:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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.