Talk:Martin Randall Travel

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 November 2006 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy delete.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 November 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

I've tried to be balanced, but I've had difficulty finding critical sources as most articles I could only find via the MRT website. Please help me find poor reviews and critical information to balance the article further, I'm afraid of relying on the company's word too much Fuzzibloke (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? Why?[edit]

I do not see how writing an article about a company counts as advertising. This article was deleted years ago as pork, but if it's balanced I don't see why it should be deleted this time round. This is a 20-year old company which is (apparently) acknowledged as leader of its field. I'm compiling an Awards list at the moment (tricky when there is just one on the website). If the amount of attention paid to something is what qualifies it as an article, surely a company with thousands of clients counts as important enough to become article #2 million or whatever it is?

I do not see what the problem is. I participated on one of the cruises (the Aegean one) and was surprised to find no MRT article, but an article on the MS Columbus. Surely that counts as a company or product? And it was allowed as a stub, whereas this is a thoroughly researched decent-length article.

On another note, to be properly balanced, I really do need some independent reviews of the company... Will anyone help? Nah, I'll do it myself.

This is worthy to be an article, in my opinion. I don't see what would need to be rewritten, but if anybody told me, I would be happy to oblige. Heck, each episode in the Simpsons has an article - why is that more deserving? If I sound defensive, sorry, I think all my arguments sound like that... This article is brand new. I would be happy to revise it, and indeed I intend to, but I think this subject IS worthy of an article (if only a stub). That's what Wikipedia is for... Tell me where the problems are and I will deal with them.Fuzzibloke (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, policies and style gone, as it was the closest I could find to advertising. I thought it was worth a mention, but in the end just subbed in a few sentences from the brochure... oops. Fuzzibloke (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not significant enough?[edit]

I believe it is, but last time I tried to prove an article was significant enough, it was just read as pork. I'll try again with this article.

Okay... it is the leading cultural tour operator, it has a subscription list of abour twenty thousand, it employs some of the experts in their field (my cruise had the Bishop of London on), it's won a lot of awards... How is this NOT eligible for being an article? 200 tours a year, says the brochure. Its competitor, Swan Hellenic, has an article - why not MRT?

At the moment, I'm trying to work out which years the company did NOT win the Best Brochure award. I just clicked a random article: Palazzo Foscari. (Ironically, MRT probably visits it.) Please tell me how an old building is more deserving than a successful company. I reckon the only reason that there is not an article now is that the average age of MRT clients is about seventy. But why should that discredit it?

I believe every company as major as this deserves articles, and as far as I can tell, most have them.

So this article needs improving. I will improve it. Just could someone tell me what the problem is...?

Thanks Fuzzibloke (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External link?[edit]

Is it worth putting in an External Link to the website? Fuzzibloke (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be an issue, but read WP:EL to be sure. SpikeJones (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actively encourages it, actually, it's number 1 on what should be linked - will do so now Fuzzibloke (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]