Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Rome Tours & Walks


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Dark Rome Tours & Walks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't believe that this company is notable - it is just another travel company. It has been mentioned in the LA Times etc but those refs just tell us that the company exists and how much it charges for the tours as these articles are primarily aimed at travellers Gbawden (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The company has been written about in travel sections of news publications around the world. I added a few more, and tried to avoid press releases, personal sites and commercial sites. Sure, the articles are aimed at travelers - just as software articles are aimed at software users and articles about cars are in auto magazines.  Some of the articles are reports from travel writers who have taken the tours - just as valid as references as book reviews are for a book article.  The company does run non-notable, ordinary tours, but it also has special tours that other tour companies don't do, and that is what has attracted the news coverage.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: per Ann Delong's rationale, coverage is significant. Vrac (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now I suppose as there' enough acceptable coverage. SwisterTwister   talk  21:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.