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 delete. Seems like the only sources explicitly provided (and not just a Google search) aren't in-depth enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikos Resorts[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is nothing more than a business listing on a company that isn't even two years old. MSJapan (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Might be WP:TOOSOON but is covered in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable sources, [1] and [2] are in and of themselves sufficient, and google news has a long list of many more. Fieari (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources listed by Fierari establish WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both of the sources listed above are showcased galleries and advertisements for this resort company, all resorts all such advertisements and they are quite frequently enticed and paid for; the second link is then also advertising and it's literally an interview with the businessman himself. It's clear to say that such a new company like this, they would be ever so avid about advertising and these are the examples above: flashy and advertising information about its services. The second link above is clearly a travel guide itself, so along with all of these certainly not being guaranteed to not be influenced by this company itself, there's certainly no guarantees it's not PR-based, which in this case, is clearly so. Honestly, the article itself is actually speedy material in that it only contains no minimal and basic information along with barebone thin claims. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:DIRECTORY. The sources offered above are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH / GNG, with one being an interview with the owner. The rest are better, but not by much. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one line to read. Definitely not even worthy of discussions. Light2021 (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above. Too short to be a stub w/ unreliable sources (advertisements).Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 04:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are not good enough to satisfy WP:NCORP

Meet the man behind Ikos Resorts Interview of the chief executive of Ikos Resorts which cannot be used for notability per WP:CORPIND
Hotel review This is a routine review and honestly this looks suspiciously like an advertorial

I don't see any high quality indepth sources which are required for satisfying WP:NCORP, so delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm inclined to agree that the sources provided at not useful in determining notability. I see no other indication that this resort meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. The WP:BURDEN is on the keep camp to address these concerns which have not yet since been done. Mkdw ^talk 04:37, 16 October 2016 (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.