Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday Extras


 * 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 00:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Holiday Extras

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fundamentally promotional article, but editor who admits he is writing this at company request- though not for pay  DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I respect the author's motivations, but a personal website or detailed blog would be a better place for this text.TH1980 (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello User talk:TH1980

Thank you for your contribution to this debate.

The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is that the subject matter must be notable and that the facts given must be verifiable. I hope I have demonstrated below that the Holiday Extras' entry satisfies that criteria. Like it or not the modern world recognises the commercial entity and although such an article may not have appeared in the 18th century editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica, a contemporay equivalent would be bereft if it did not include such a catagory. Indeed Wikipedia does embrace this as can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_companies?oldformat=true. I totally accept what Wikipedia is trying and indeed is achieving and I recognise the importance of notability and verifiability. I look forward to this logic being employed when a decision is made about this entry.

Thank you.

Davidcowell42 (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi

As the author of the Holiday Entry page I would like to address DGG's concerns about the entry and will do so over the next 48 hours.

Thank you.

David Davidcowell42 (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi

As the author of the Holiday Entry page I would like to address DGG's concerns about the entry and his belief that it does not comply with Wikipedia’s criteria.

1. Notability:

The probability of a start up company, without the support of a large funding group, failing is very high with estimates of a survival rate as low as 10% being possible https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilpatel/2015/01/16/90-of-startups-will-fail-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-10/#1a5097496679. There are a tad under 7000 businesses employing more than 250 people in the UK https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/467443/bpe_2015_statistical_release.pdf. For Holiday Extras to not only have survived but also thrived I would suggest is notable particularly as they appear in the Sunday Times top performing companies in various categories http://appointments.thesundaytimes.co.uk/article/best100companies/. In the best companies category they appear at number 47 which places them well within the top 1% of the business community.

The page statistics show since its creation, modest but consistent visitor numbers and it is quite possible that a lecturer/teacher uses the page as an integrated part of a business studies lesson so although registered as one visit it is possible that 20 plus viewed it.

Holiday Extras has recently purchased an IT booking company called Chauntry http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent-business/county-news/holiday-extras-hythe-secures-takeover-airport-car-parking-booking-systems-provider-chauntry-135218/ who operate globally and Purple Parking at Heathrow Airport https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/4839166/london-city-airport-heathrow-purple-parking/. Both these acquisitions were reported by third party publications.

2. Verifiability:

Following the appreciated advice of your editing peers I am satisfied that every statement made is verified by an independent third party and if I am mistaken about this I would like you to draw any you consider not being so to my attention so I can respond accordingly and address the issue if necessary. Thank you.

3. My role:

As disclosed, I was a director of Holiday Extras until 2006 and during that time I gave lectures to sixth form and college students on the genesis of the company and it was recognized as a welcomed part of their business studies curriculum. In my disclosure statement I showed the agenda for such an attended event. At the age of 70 I no longer give these lectures and have made the information available on-line via Wikipedia so it can be used as part of lessons.

Davidcowell42 (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: the comments by the author don't change the fact that it still fails to pass WP:CORPDEPTH ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The original editor I have given a full explanation as to why I believe the entry complies whereas others have made generalisations eg “it fails to pass” and “web/blog would be a better place”. I believe unless they can provide concrete evidence that it isn’t notable with third party validation then the AfD should be removed.

Davidcowell42 (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as spam. Promotional article from the outset. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of your allegations please.

Davidcowell42 (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete With my respect's to the author and his above reasoning, I don't think the article passes WP:CORPDEPTH nor WP:AUD. The only references I could find mentioned the company in passing. Company A bought Company B. Or Company A sells travel. Even then, those sources were not good sources (primary or advertisements). WP:AUD states a business entity should have at least one regional, non-limited interest article provided towards notability. The author went to some great length above to prove notability, but the strongest argument presented was basically: most companies fail. Sadly, this does not address nor meet the requirements of WP:GNG for any item on WP. An analogy of the author's justification would be similar to Operator873 managed to survive birth, grew to age, married, and had children; Therefore, Operator873 is notable. However, I fail notability tests... as does this article. Mr. Cowell, thank you for the time and effort you've spent on Wikipedia so far. Your contributions are appreciated, despite this referendum. I'd strongly encourage you to seek out articles that pique your curiosity or fancy that you may not have a conflict of interest or close attachment to. I also welcome any questions you may have and am willing to help guide your future endeavors. Best wishes. Operator873 CONNECT 01:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Operator873

Thank you for taking the time to contribute in such a reasoned manner and it is much appreciated albeit I do not agree with your reasoning. Please allow me 48 hours to familiarise myself with the requirement sources you quote and also try to understand why the Sunday Times, a national United Kingdom newspaper of some repute, Travel Weekly, a United Kingdom national trade publication and Kent Messenger, a county publication, all written by independent journalists and proffered as evidence of notability, doesn't satisfy that "a business entity should have at least one regional, non-limited interest article provided towards notability"? Thank you.

User:davidcowell42

Davidcowell42 (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Morphenniel (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2017 (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.