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. Given no further opposition from previous delete !voters after Nick's improvements, and TH1980's apparent change of !vote, I'm closing this as a keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 14:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adina Apartment Hotels[edit]

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

Article was originally submitted to AfC and rejected as promotional. COI author took it upon himself to move to article space. Indications of promo remain, in addition to likely failing WP:NCORP. While there is some media coverage, this is mostly about usual corporate business, such as new hotel openings. Other sources include booking portals, hotel listings, reviews or other related promotional contents. Therefore WP:FAILN. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Nothing remotely notable about this company which has no independent, significant coverage. In no way meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The article is merely advertising masquerading as encyclopaedic content. Fails WP:ARTSPAM. Kb.au (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads like a puff piece and lacks any neutral sources to establish notability with.TH1980 (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional, weak sourcing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I question whether WP:BEFORE has taken place here: this is a pretty significant chain. Searching Google News for the chain [1] turns up lots of usable references (news stories about new hotels and redevelopments in major newspapers, reviews of hotels in reliable sources, etc). 42 hotels is a non-trivial number, and this is an unusual example of an Australian hotel chain which is successfully operating in Europe. The article isn't particularly spammy as written, and could be easily improved. Nick-D (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found lots of useful sources on this chain in the Australian business media, and have re-written the article using some of them (despite my usual policy of doing nothing whatsoever to be of any assistance to COI editors). @Jake Brockman, Kb.au, TH1980, and Smallbones: does this address your concerns? Regarding the non-used sources, it seems that most times a hotel in this chain starts construction, opens or or is sold it leads to stories in the business pages of the Australian media. There have also been some professional reviews of hotels in the chain. As such, there's room to further expand the article using independent high quality sources. Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: thanks for this. I remain sceptical though. Some of the sources pre-date their renaming and are 9 and 12 years old. They also largely strike me as coverage of routine corporate business (new hotel openings, hotels being sold, etc.) which does not normally support WP:ORGDEPTH. The article in HM reads like from a press kit - lot's of quotations from management about how great this all is, no alternative perspective or editorial work. I don't have Factiva, but did a separate scan through Business Source. The results are similar: scattered routine coverage/PR. What may remotely qualify as editorial is few and far between. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jake, what's the concern over the sources being 9-12 years old? The parent company changing its name seems to have been a superficial change, and the availability of sourcing going back this far in the business press helps to establish notability (eg, that the topic has been the subject of coverage over time). I'd note that this is a fairly prominent chain in Australia - it has large hotels in all the capital cities, and I can't think of another Australian-owned hotel chain which has been successful in Europe. Nick-D (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I have tried to plow through the press-releases, investor presentations and such for The Far East Group, TFE and Adina. There is some notability here, but I am just now sure if that's with the hotel brand Adina or would be better placed with TFE. Most of the sources come with comments such as (paraphrasing) "Toga expands Adina...". The article also mentions Toga/TFE and the group activities more than it does Adina. As such, one might think this is an article about TFE and might be better placed with Adina a redirect to TFE. I'm also not sure about claims such as "Australian-owned". They may have originated from Australia and have a focus there, but (almost philosophically speaking) how do you really establish the nationality of a brand ownership? Is this about where the trademark owner is based? How about different TM owner in different markets (such as with Travelodge)? Has someone gone ahead and checked the nationalities of all the shareholders of the company that owns the TM? This strikes me like a marketing claim (haven't seen this in any of the indepedent sources) and should be removed or at least moved from the lead section to the main body - if it can be properly sourced. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At present we don't have an article on Toga or TFE to upmerge it to, and I'm not about to write it ;) I agree with you on this no longer really being "Australian-owned" - given the parent company is now a Singapore-Australia joint venture, and is funded from all over the place. The 2009 Australian Financial Review story said it was an Australian-owned chain, but that was before the joint venture. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is better now. Way to go. :-) Good rewrite, man.TH1980 (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of Nick-D's rewrite: now passes WP:GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In addition to some coverage in the Oz and the AFR, there's plenty of coverage about this significant chain in the hotel trade press, especially in Germany. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is now much improved. Kerry (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2018 (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.