Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hidden Croatia


 * 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   delete.  Sandstein  19:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hidden Croatia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The substantial coverage from the Travel Trade Gazette (1, 2, and 3) and other sources at http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Hidden+Croatia%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1 establishes that Hidden Croatia passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment How do we know what Travel Trade Gazette have to say? It is a subscription only site apparently. I don't find the other sources to be reliable sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The abstract establishes that Hidden Croatia is the main subject of the articles. Cunard (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but the abstracts are very short and what they do include appears to be pretty trivial press-release type material. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first source is titled "Launchpad: Hidden Croatia woos the trade" and is written by Charlotte Walsh. The available text is: "Hidden Croatia is moving beyond direct selling and is courting the trade for the first time with a brochure and website for agents. The Croatian specialist has been operating for five years as a direct business, and is now looking to increase its carryings from 2,200 to..." I interpret the text as being a neutral news article from the Travel Trade Gazette, a "weekly newspaper for the travel industry" (from its Wikipedia article) and indicating that there is further, likely substantial coverage, about Hidden Croatia under the paywall. Cunard (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable. The notability guidelines for organisations give particular difficulties, and the question of just what coverage in independent publications is sufficient to establish notability has to be a judgement call. What I would be looking for here is something to make Hidden Croatia stand out from the crowd; whether it was a dominant player in the market, whether it innovated in a way that was then copied by other operators, or whatever. The trouble with trade publications is that their job is to inform the trade what is happening in the industry, so the mere fact that the Travel Trade Gazette reported on them can be regarded in itself as merely routine. Similarly, that newspapers mentioned that this operator offered holidays to Croatia, in the context of advice to readers on holidays in the region, is not enough in itself to make Hidden Croatia stand out. These things are important in verifying that the company existed and what it did, but notability is different and I do not see it here. --AJHingston (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete While there is a bit of coverage here, AJHingston does a good job of making for the case that it's pretty much routine. A sentence in The Guardian about using it as a possible operator and trade publication mentions don't really establish notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree that Travel Trade Gazette's being a trade publication is sufficient to disqualify it from establishing notability. However, I believe that AJHingston's and Nwlaw63's positions are valid interpretations of the guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete - I concur with Cunard that Travel Trade Gazette is a reliable source. However, given that is the only publication that seems to give this company any sort of coverage, I refer to WP:CORPDEPTH and conclude that this does not meet inclusion as the Gazette is the only coverage, and falls into the category of "media of limited interest and circulation".  With no other coverage in reliable sources, I feel this falls short. -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:CORP. A short mention at another travel website doesn't make it notable. Articles such as this only exist on WP to give themselves more exposure and credibility. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:38, 8 February 2012 (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.