Talk:CV Villas

Untitled
Rewritten to remove any form of promotional content, leaving only facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkLyster64 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Advert tag
Copied from Quartermaster's talk page: You added an advert tag to CV Travel. Will you please quote which sentences you find to be promotional, so that I can rewrite/remove them? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The entire article as written sounds like an advertisement and, in my opinion, is totally inappropriate as an encyclopedia article. An article about a travel agency of no real note is merely clutter (and there is a lot of similar clutter) in wikipedia. A major clue is that the only two external links listed are a) the official website, and b) a twitter account (both of these should be considered as spam links). All of the references basically are travel articles that mention the agency in passing. The entire article sounds like a travel brochure for the agency. If this article is ok, then every travel agency mentioned in Conde Nast should have their own wikipedia article. I have neither the time nor the stomach to bother with this article. I have no idea why anyone not affiliated with this agency would bother editing the article in the first place. --Quartermaster (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation, but you still haven't provided quotes as to which sentences are not WP:NPOV. How is this travel agency of "no real note"? Notability is determined by the ample number of reliable sources provided in the article. The two external links are acceptable: a) see External links for why it is acceptable. b) the fact that there is Template:Twitter means that a link to Twitter is not unencyclopedic. If you believe that all the sources are only passing mentions of the company, feel free to take it to WP:AFD. You say that If this article is ok, then every travel agency mentioned in Conde Nast should have their own wikipedia article. I agree that if the other travel agencies in Conde Nast are also notable, articles should be written about them. Sadly, due to systemic bias, many of these articles will likely never get written. I have no idea why anyone not affiliated with this agency would bother editing the article in the first place. Are you insinuating that I'm an WP:SPA, who is a member of this travel company and who has been paid to write this Wikipedia article? I can tell right off the bat that you are wrong. Please take a look at my contributions &mdash; even my talk page &mdash; to see several articles I have saved from speedy deletion. Many of these articles are about companies and organizations like this one. I've listed this article at WP:COIN to get a third opinion about this article's notability and tone. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've come from wp:coin but I can't personally see anything too promotional - most importantly all the information is referenced which in my experience is not the case when an adverty article has been written by PR people for example. I can't see how it could be improved and think the tag can be removed. Smartse (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I would remove the advert tag. Ad copy is characterised by weasel words ("some say CV is the finest agency in the world"), unsourced claims ("award winning"), and corporate babble ("Cookson personally inspects each property with a fine-tooth comb"), and I don't see that here. The only thing I might remove is the list of awards unless they can be sourced from someplace other than the awarding agency, but that's a particular pet peeve of mine, not a WP policy. Notability is a separate issue, and while CV seems only marginally notable to me, I think it does meet the minimum requirements. If you do want to pursue notability, you can take it to WP:AFD. Rees11 (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will not revert the removal of the advert tag. Go ahead. My concerns have been stated and I expect that an intelligent reader of this article will be able to determine if this is a notable organization, or a transparent ploy at using wikipedia for PR. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a notability tag. I think only one of the references is a reliable secondary source that is not obviously copied from a press release (not counting the awards). At least one of the refs is not verifiable, as it requires a login to view. I know I said "I would" remove the ad tag, but I'll let someone else do that. Rees11 (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The consensus here is that the article is not promotional, so I've removed the advert tag. I disagree with the notability tag because this company passes WP:CORP. This source from The Observer is a reliable source that provides significant coverage of the company. This news article and this one are from Travel Mole and are not copies of press releases. Both are written by Bev Fearis, who likely doesn't have any affiliation with this company due to the large number of articles she has written for this magazine about other travel companies. If you agree with assessment, could you remove the Notability tag? If you disagree, please nominate it for AfD. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to verify the Travel Mole references. As I said, I can only find a single verifiable source, the Observer story, and the author of that story has a conflict of interest as her trip was paid for by CV. In my opinion that does not constitute "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." But I would welcome other opinions. Rees11 (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You can see the Travel Mole articles in this link and this one. More sources that establish notability include this article from The Independent and this article from The Sunday Herald. These sources should be enough to push this company over WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If you will fix the Travel Mole refs and add one of the others I will remove the notability tag. Rees11 (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've fixed/added the refs. Cunard (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Travel Mole links still don't work for me, but I've removed the tag. Rees11 (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the second ref. To see the Travel Mole articles, you have to click on the "Archived from the original" link before you can see the WebCite link. I have no clue why it's like that; the other WebCite links work perfectly fine without having to do that. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)