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 no consensus. Sandstein 05:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThirdHome[edit]

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

s good deal of publicity. , but all of it is based on a single advertising campaign. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete A small business. Refs are usual PR stuff, no indications of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi, I have added new references to the article, and I have also updated the text by adding new information from 2018. I want to ask some questions:

Articles in Travel & Leisure, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, The Times, The New York Post, Fox News, The Telegraph, The Independent ... are not enough coverage in reliable media?

Why do you say that refs are usual PR stuff? They are articles signed in recognized media.Richard Ketter (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as examples, the Forbes ref is a pure press release. Forbes publishes real news and analysis, but it also publishes press releases and company listings. The Independent is likewise a press release. The various materials about look for someone to visit the proposed properties are all press releases. The Times is a little different--it's an interview with the founder where he says whatever he pleases. Such interviews are no more reliable sources for notability than anything else he says about his own company. It'sa little scandalous that we can no longer trust even thebest newspapers to adoivd article that amount to advertorials, but that one in The Times is a classic example of the genre. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks, there are 19 references, all are from reliable sources and there are tons of articles on Wikipedia based on these sources. It's obvious that these news websites like Forbes, Times which you mentioned only, gathers information from different sources which could be press releases. e.g The White house doesn't call these news websites and supply information, they just do press releases and the whole world writes about the story. Similarly, that contest went viral around the world with a huge media coverage and I think they aren't press releases because they are not the words of the company but written by independent media sources. I maybe wrong but if something is notable within the industry and is known in different continents within the hospitality industry and being published and discussed in independent sources I think it deserves a space.

When I wrote this, one of your colleague @Jcc: approved the article from the draft, so it means he doesn't know about Wikipedia policies? Or it vary from person to person? Or it was notable at that time but not now? After reading WP:GNG I think it clearly meets the requirement. Richard Ketter (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)2[reply]

Keep Yes, thank you for the notification. My opinion at the time was that it meets the criteria for inclusion and I still believe that it does, but ultimately the community decides. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP; just a promotional blurb. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's notable within the travel and leisure sector, and I think coverage is in reliable media as per WP:GNG. Mia Watson (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the references are covering is an advertising stunt. And the stunt itself would fall under ONEEVENT. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 23 June 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.