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. No one espoused outright deletion after sourcing was found. Instead, the question became what kind of article can be written. These are normal editing discussions, and can continue on the talk page. If consensus arises to merge that can be accomplished outside of AFD. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parkroyal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, unresolved. I couldn't verify that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It is an international business and the hotels look very nice, it is listed on the usual Tripadvisor, laterooms etc., but I couldn't verify notability. It was speey deleted at AfD in 2007, but this was for copyvio/advert, which may have been solved; I also cannot see for sure if it was the same company. Boleyn (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pan Pacific Hotels and Resorts which also needs considerable work but could meet WP:GNG. Flat Out (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH with ease. Simply selecting the News link atop provides plenty of sig cov in rs: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]. See also, section D of WP:BEFORE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, http://blogs.wsj.com/scene/2013/06/07/singapores-new-urban-oasis/, which discusses Parkroyal on Pickering's design. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)'s sources are from reputable publications in Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, and the United States. The subject is clearly notable.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Parkroyal to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pan Pacific Hotels and Resorts. Yes, Parkroyal technically meets GNG and CORPDEPTH, but is it really a stand-alone article topic? Seems like a WP:PERMASTUB to me, as there is "little important to say about the subject." What could an article for a minor hotel brand include if it was developed into the best article it could be? As for Northamerica1000's sources above. Numbers 1, 2, 4 and 6 are hotel reviews. Are hotel reviews really "significant"? #3 has some news reporting, but the article is focused on the general market conditions for hotels in Singapore and the parent company, Pan Pacific, more than the Parkroyal. #7 is a disguised press release and I have doubts that #5 is a reliable source [1]: "SpiceNews is a free bi-weekly newsletter for the events industry that curates everything new, inspiring and relevant in hotel and venue openings and refurbishments, special events, event suppliers and services, destinations, airlines, as well as the meetings, incentives, conference and exhibition sectors." "Curates" and "everything" are contradictory, and it looks like "everything" wins out. -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I looked at North America's list of sources, and for the most part, agree with Mnnlaxer that a bunch of travel reviews doesn't meet the bar of WP:CORPDEPTH. Redirect or selective merge as suggested. We certainly don't need the table of how many rooms each property has. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Mnnlaxer says the topic does meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said "technically", which means I don't think the subject is notable even though it passes some criteria. -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - to Pan Pacific Hotels and Resorts; while the article may technically meet WP:CORPDEPTH, most of the coverage is simply related to hotel reviews, the article does not appear that it can be expanded beyond an incomplete stub, and any relevant information can be added to the Pan Pacific Hotels article. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree with a merge of Parkroyal to Pan Pacific Hotels and Resorts. I also disagree that Parkroyal has no potential at growing beyond a permastub. From http://www.parkroyalhotels.com/en/about.html: "The PARKROYAL portfolio comprises 17 hotels, resorts and serviced suites in gateway cities across Asia and Australia, including those under development." The article can be expanded by discussing the history, architecture, and reception of Parkroyal's 17 hotels. The sources Northamerica1000 has pointed out are a good starting point for that. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your quote doesn't prove anything, it is from the company. The article can only discuss those things if there are independent, reliable sources for them. those sources are a good starting point for marketing materials for the Parkroyal. -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The quote verifies the uncontroversial fact that Parkroyal has 17 hotels. Those 17 hotels can be discussed in the article using as a basis the independent reliable sources that Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) has listed above. News.com.au, The Australian, Bloomberg Businessweek, South China Morning Post, The Jakarta Post, and The Wall Street Journal are all independent reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2015 (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.