Talk:Canopy by Hilton Portland Pearl District/Archive 1
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Another Believer in topic Merge
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Merge
@Otr500: I hope you don't mind, I've reverted your merge by adding a few more sources. Seems there's info to add about the building's construction, interior and exterior design, hotel management, other historical claims, etc. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: I don't mind. There are some, especially those getting paid, that think all subjects warrant a standalone article. It is good advertisement. There are also some that think, "sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article". Expanding a parent article from start is sometimes considered less appealing (let's make Wikipedia bigger with one million stubs or start-class articles) than creating a new article. The main subject (Canopy by Hilton) is Hilton's twelfth brand with approximately thirty properties under development". Hilton reportedly has 6,215 properties and I can assure anyone I can find industry-related sources (Business Insider, Travel Weekly, Hospitality Net, etc...) to create a stub or start-class article on most, if not all, the locations.
- Except for advertising, that runs the world, there is no actual good reason this location cannot be covered under the parent article. I do suppose that as Wikipedia ages we need to start as many articles as we can to show it is still growing. I also suppose that if an editor can get paid for creating a big portion of these "6,215 properties" that is not a bad thing as long as others support it. It can be noted that The 50,000 Challenge does include "Improve/create any article", and expanding would qualify as "improving".
- I don't think this article is a discrete subject (#3) to warrant stand-alone status. If the parent article was too large I could see a split but that is not the case.
- I will objectively look around and may suggest a formal merge to see if the general consensus has changed because possibly there can be a separate entry for every concept. If that is the case I may join certain editors (but as a volunteer) and jump on the bandwagon. Alright, probably not. Have a nice day, -- Otr500 (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Wasn't paid to write the article, so that's not an issue, but seems someone else has nominated the article for deletion so we'll see what happens! Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)