Talk:Drury Hotels

Should the information in this diff be included in the article? Instaurare (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No. This is a clear-cut case of
  WP:NOTNEWS, etc. The paragraph, describing one incident involving a handful of employees at one location, is 84 words; the paragraph about the entire history of the company is 86 words. If we were to include this tidbit, we should add all of these incidents to the articles of the hotels where they took place. Instaurare (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yes, the
  WP:UNDUE. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia by repeatedly removing valid content; this has already been discussed in multiple fora and a consensus (just mention briefly) reached. 66.102.87.210 (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There is no such consensus, but if there is, it would be against inclusion. A request for comment is not disruptive (your use of an IP address to hide your username is, though). Instaurare (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@66.102.87.210 Do you have any links to discussions and/or decisions in Wikipedia related to this issue? Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No - per
  WP:NOTNEWS. She states in her lawsuit that she has stayed at numerous Drury Inn hotels and has "always felt welcome". So this was an isolated incident involving just these employees and this particular hotel and is not representative of her overall experience at Drury hotels (according to her).-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment - There's more to this. This was the management (and not just some random employees), she was imprisoned for eight days as a result of the false accusations and the American Civil Liberties Union was involved in taking the matter before the Iowa state Human Rights Commission. There's more to this than I could fit in a line or two of abridged text; see the original sources for all the ugly details. 66.102.87.210 (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there is more to this, and in order to provide the necessary context surrounding this incident, it would require expansion with more details which would make it

WP:UNDUE. The police found no evidence the women were engaged in sex work, so she wasn't arrested and imprisoned as a result of the false accusations made by the hotel employees. She was arrested and imprisoned for eight days because she had an outstanding warrant in Illinois for a $1,713 fine from a five-year-old credit card fraud case and for possessing prescription medicine without a prescription and because she gave a police officer a fake name and said she was from Ohio, rather than Illinois (which she has admitted that she did).-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• No - While the event in question is arguably notable, the inclusion in the History section of this article is certainly
  WP:UNDUE. Is this single event really an entire quarter of the significant history of the entire hotel chain? If it were in another section (e.g. 'Controversies') of an article with more content, this might be a different story. Arathald (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The discussion at the LGBT WikiProject seemed to have good ideas. Maybe this belongs more in an article about regional LGBT rights than in this article. A single incident in a single hotel does seem like it might be undue in such a small article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No This article has been used, on and off, for promotional purposes for years but that doesn't give detractors etc the right to kick back. Isaidnoway has it right. - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No Including the disputed item would give
  not meant for promotion or propaganda of ideas, no matter how worthy they might be. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No@
  Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector was speaking on behalf of a very ill-considered Governor Sam Brownback-initiated proposed social policy. I was astounded when a huge policeman, who looked like a double for Richard Moll, the giant bailiff character "Bull Shannon" from Night Court, began violently manhandling a tiny middle aged Native American woman who had asked him to be a bit gentler with another middle aged woman who had just exited the conference, whom he was arresting. She had been at a demonstration by Occupy Wall Street protesters which the hotel management did not seem to be interfering with in any way. The call for police assistance was initiated instead by a Brownback staffer. It was a clear case of gratuitous police brutality and she was arrested. So here was a similar case as the Iowa incident. Did the hotel precipitate it? Not a chance. But the Yes voters here might think it warranted inclusion. (The black police chief was soon forced to resign over mishandling of this and many other questionable police assaults, some fatal, suffered by minorities.) I lived far away from Wichita, so it was hard to find out how the case turned out, but the weight of the prosecution fell groundlessly upon the woman who was convicted of "resisting arrest" I think. I just found a narrative about the situation: http://www.kansasfreepress.com/2011/11/freedom-of-speech-is-relative-in-wichita.html Activist (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'd be in favor of inclusion if the article were longer. A lot longer. But it's not. Truncating the account of events just makes its inclusion more confusing. Elinruby (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No - per
  WP:NOTNEWS. User:Isaidnoway provides evidence that the incident mentioned is also not suitable for mention in any article on LGBTI rights, except perhaps to lend weight to an argument that some advocates for such rights both muddy the waters and bring disrepute on their movement, by painting an arrest for a financial misdemeanor as stereotyping or racial profiling based on race or gender. yoyo (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Probably not -- The article is about the hotel, not about right wing extremists accusing guests of prostitution, so as everyone else pointed out, that would be undue weight to an incident that probably happens from time to time given the named individual's religious and political bigotries but which is not relevant (as yet; that may change as more victims step forward.) Damotclese (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No, as written, the text seems to be an irrelevant fact. I think there would have to be more text to explain why the information is important to include in the article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No - Summoned by bot. Delete per
  WP:UNDUE and the content is in no way relevant or encyclopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No, per all above. I don't think there's anything substantial to add at this point. Snowball close. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]