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. There is no support for the nominator's argument. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonesta International Hotels[edit]

Sonesta International Hotels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Besides, references cited in the article seems to be sponsored ads. Fails WP:NORG. Htanaungg (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This has recently become one of the largest hotel chains in the world, with corresponding major press coverage. Its recent fast growth has been the subject of two substantial articles in Forbes, which is one of the top business periodicals in the US. (The articles in Forbes have 1,200 and 1,000 words, devoted entirely to this hotel chain.) It has also been the subject of substantial articles in Skift and Hotel Management, which are major publications in the travel and hotel industries. The nominator keeps changing their critique, first that the article lacks "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention," even though the source articles are indeed independent and give significant coverage. Then that "sources are more commercial than neutral and reliable," though Wikipedia has no policy against commercial sources; many reliable sources, like newspapers and academic publishers, are commercial businesses. Now, that it reads "like an advertisement" and references "seems to be sponsored ads." I see no indication that any of the references is sponsored. The article is entirely factual, without puffery or advertising. It describes the size of the chain, and lists its major brands, which is normal for a Wikipedia article on a company with multiple brands, so that people researching those brands can find their owner and relationships. Some of the brands and individual hotels are notable in their own right and have articles, which also indicates the notability of the large parent company. Editors who dislike the current article's wording can offer improvements, not deletion, when the subject is clearly notable. I have no relationship with the company; I sometimes edit articles about languages, ran into this chain, and sought more information on it. Kim9988 (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article needs to be improved, but the company meets with notability guidelines. Lagoyan (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to pass WP:NCORP based on the sources in the article. The multiple independent RS with in-depth coverage on the company's expansion in 2020 are particularly convincing. The nominator hasn't provided a convincing source analysis to make a valid deletion claim.4meter4 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 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.