Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotelbeds (2nd nomination)

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. Per WP:HEY and nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hotelbeds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails NCORP. Sources are not reliable and sufficient enough to establish notability. The article is reliant on dependent coverage and coverage from travel websites. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Spain. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdrawn by nominator, per the discussion below. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 23:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Very PROMO with routine business mentions used for sourcing. That's about similar to what I find. Oaktree b (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please indicate non-independent business mentions so that I can find better sources or remove? Travel&tourism-es (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We need coverage of the company in the New York Times, a peer-reviewed business journal or the like. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Added coverage in International Travel & Health Insurance Journal, Bloomberg, The Times, El Mundo and El País (the two biggest newspapers in Spanish), Expansión (the leadinh economic newspaper in Spain) and two published books on hotel distribution available in Google Books. Travel&tourism-es (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An unmistakably promotional article, created by an editor with conflict of interest. JBW (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Withdrawn: see below. JBW (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Conflict of interest is declared and the article intention is to be factual, not promotional. Please provide suggestions to remove promotional references. Travel&tourism-es (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What ever may be the intention, the character of the article is promotional. JBW (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review the new version? Travel&tourism-es (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added references to help identify notability: companies ordered by revenue in the state. Travel&tourism-es (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have indeed added a couple of links, including a list of companies ordered by revenue in the state. However, inclusion in a list is not evidence of notability in Wikipedia's sense; you need to provide citations to substantial coverage of the subject, not just inclusion in lists. In fact, your comment here prompted me to check all the references ion the article, which I had not previously done, having based my impression purely on the promotional tone of the article. I have found that not a single one of the references is substantial coverage of the subject. One of the references doesn't even mention the company, others include announcements of changes in the business's structure or management or of acquisitions of companies, pages which only very briefly mention Hotelbeds, etc. Also some of them are clearly not independent sources, being on the company's own web site or stes of other businesses connected to it, and others look very much as though they may be write-ups of press release information or similar. In fact, now that I have checked the references, my "delete" above has now become more like "DELETE". JBW (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistake, I’m new to creating articles. I have rewritten the page correcting the tone. Added as well coverage in International Travel & Health Insurance Journal, Bloomberg, The Times, El Mundo and El País (the two biggest newspapers in Spanish), Expansión (the leadinh economic newspaper in Spain) and two published books on hotel distribution available in Google Books.

Could you please review? Travel&tourism-es (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted someone to "review", you should have used the WP:AfC process as advised for WP:PAID editors. It is also not other editor's responsibility to provide you with links or tell you where it is promotional. Finally, it is also up to you to provide references that meet WP:ORGCRIT, not just adding as many references as you can find. Can you point out the references that meet ORGCRIT? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your guidance and sorry for the mistake :-/ I’ve added now my assessments of the sources with respect to the notability guideline for organizations (ORGCRIT) in a comment into this discussion. Travel&tourism-es (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing more than ad copy. XOR'easter (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of article rewritten, could you please review? Travel&tourism-es (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have looked at the current version of the article, and compared it with the version which existed when I posted my comments above.

• Firstly, I will comment on the promotional tone of the article. You have made some changes to the article, including removing some promotional wording, but on the other hand you have added further promotional text in other parts of the article, so that the end result is certainly not significantly less promotional than the earlier version, and I should say if anything slightly more so. You have declared a conflict of interest in relation to this article (thank you for doing so) and you may well work in marketing, PR, or a related field. Over the years I have found that professionals in such fields very often seem to be totally unable to see why other people view their writing as promotional, and strive to make it unpromotional in character, but fail to do so. I have formed the impression that such people are so used to reading, writing, hearing, and speaking marketing speak for hours on end, day after day, year after year, that they become desensitised to it, and actually cannot see its promotional character even when it is right in front of their face. That is probably one of the reasons why time and again I have seen editors of this kind sincerely trying, in perfectly good faith, to produce something which looks neutral to others, and never succeeding in doing so.
• Now, the references. You have almost doubled the number of references since the last time I checked, from 14 to 27, but unfortunately it is almost all just more of the same: a book of 221 pages, which includes one mention of Hotelbeds, and that one mention is merely including it in a list of six businesses; business announcements such as "The former TUI Travel Accommodation & Destinations is now called Hotelbeds Group", "Hotelbeds Agrees to Buy Wholesaler GTA"; and so on... There is, however, just one citation to something which could be regarded as substantial coverage in an independent source, namely an article published by the newspaper El País, at the URL https://elpais.com/economia/negocios/2023-06-07/uno-de-los-mayores-bancos-de-camas-de-hotel-es-espanol-y-esta-en-venta.html. If there are a few more sources available like that one then there may be enough evidence of notability to justify an article about the business, but even if that is so (which needs to be demonstrated) then this is not the article which would be justified, because it really is just an attempt to promote the business. JBW (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @JBW for your time and very useful guidance.

• On your first point, the article is now rewritten in much more neutral tone; hopefully it also appears neutral to others.
• On your second point, the references, thank you for pointing me in the right direction.

I add the ORGCRIT table to review notability. Please correct if I may not be selecting the appropriate values based on my review. Travel&tourism-es (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are my assessments of the sources with respect to the notability guideline for organizations (ORGCRIT).

|- style="background:#f8f9fa;"

Your recent edits have been a serious attempt to address both the issues which have been raised, promotional tone and lack of evidence of notability. In my opinion, the article is no longer at all promotional, so that problem has gone. As for the referencing, the following references have been added since the last time I checked the article: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Some of those do give much more substantial coverage of Hotelbeds than the earlier references, but there's the question whether they are enough. I would like to have one or more other independent opinions on that. I am therefore withdrawing my "delete" but I am not quite ready to add a "keep". Pinging @Fancy Refrigerator, Oaktree b, and XOR'easter: in case any of them would like to reconsider the article, since it is significantly different from how it was when they last reviewed it. JBW (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep El Pais seems ok, the rest are of lesser quality, but I think together it's just enough. I'll modify my !vote above. Oaktree b (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, sources are now of much better quality. I don’t see any other major issues with the article. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 23:55, 11 June 2023 (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.