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. (non-admin closure) ansh666 11:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OYO Rooms (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 article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Not notable! Vinay089 (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Totally meets WP:GNG. If it is written like an advertisement, WP:SOFIXIT. sst✈^discuss 02:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 02:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 02:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as there isn't much convincing of better improvement simply because of some coverage here and there. Pinging past users Oshwah and Gilliam and also DGG who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. I definitely agree that there are many issues with the article. However, this fact doesn't warrant its deletion using the AFD process - it just needs to be improved. Many secondary reliable sources exist that discuss this company in-depth ([1], [2], [3], [4] to list a few). Passes WP:GNG and appears also to pass WP:COMPANY by a mile. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I updated my vote and redacted some parts of my voting statement. Sorry for taking so long to follow-up, I've been very busy lately. I've looked into this a bit more per DGG's arguments for deleting the article - I'm not completely finished yet, but so far, I'm standing behind my vote. DGG argues a very valid point, in that notability due to articles talking about funding (I'm also going to add sources that cover another company's decision to use their product to this thought as well) - do not assert notability by themselves. I agree with his statement. However, this source, as well as this one, this one, and even this one provide coverage that appears to align with the independence, reliability, and coverage topic (including DGG's arguments) required to establish notability for WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Straightforward promotionalism. Almost enough for G11, regardless of any possible notability. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DGG - I made some quick improvements to the article. Hopefully this will help, but please let me know if you still disagree. I'll see if I can't try and further address the issues that still remain in the article. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yws, the article is improved--most of the promotional material, has been removed. The problem now is notability. Of the references, most refer only to the funding. I think it's now becoming accepted that references referring primarily to the initial funding before a first public offering are mere notices, and do not show notability . Obviously, every company will have funding of some sort, and that fact that a company does, is not evidence of any encyclopedic significance. If the company is indeed the largest budget hotel chain, this might well be notability ,but the evidence to prove it comes from unreliable sources: Startup Beat is a publisher of press releases, hindu businessline, likewise. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG - Let me re-evaluate the sources I found and get back to you. I understand your argument that "every company gets funding" in that it's not a basis for notability since, well, it's what all companies receive. If the sources I found don't demonstrate significant coverage from multiple sources in different areas (not just one newspaper, site, etc.) then I will concede my vote. That's what I believe that it's down to (in my mind) :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The article is completely wrong. It is not a hotel chain. It is a booking website which guarantees rooms in certain hotels in different cities. The hotels operate independently and allow Oyo Rooms to claim on their site that the particular room being sold is an OYO room. This is just an "exclusive rate" tie up that hotels offer Expedia, Travelocity etc, but unlike in those cases, the booking site is branding it as their room. —SpacemanSpiff 15:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

exactly DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Oshwah. The links posted by them are sufficient to show that multiple secondary reliable sources have covered the article topic in sufficient detail to warrant notability because of WP:GNG. The article also has news reports from multiple Indian newspapers that are not just talking about the initial offering, so does not count as WP:ONEEVENT. Other points talked about the exact nature of the hotel chain/booking website are tangents to the question of notability. Soni (talk) 00:32, 13 November 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.