Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intrepid Travel


 * 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. -- Longhair\talk 20:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Intrepid Travel

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable travel agent Dontdoit (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This was a tricky one, because I Googled it and I saw that the article has references. But I still don't think it has enough to meet notability, either.  Lady   Galaxy  02:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not entirely happy with the way this has been written, but the two long-ish articles in The Age are a good indicator of notability. Also added an Arthur Frommer column on the company from the San Francisco Chronicle, and there are further articles from reliable sources ( i.e. e.g. this Observer story). Gr1st (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —WWGB (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This nomination is a joke. The company has an annual turnover of $130 million, operates in 96 countries, and has won seven national or international tourism awards. Oh, but it's not notable. Right ... WWGB (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Well known, sufficient secondary sources exist, clearly notable in my view. Murtoa (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - not only is the article referenced somewhat but there are quite an array of news articles about the company. Fails to be non-notable by a long shot - Peripitus (Talk) 11:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article sufficiently demonstrates notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not a quasi-advertisement for just-one-more small business.  Intrepid Travel is outside the mainstream, and therefore potentially notable.  Some parts of the article look like an extract from a Prospectus, or the Annual Report to shareholders, but these can be cleaned up.  The article is capable of being made scrupulously objective while still highlighting the genuine notability of the company as specified at WP:COMPANY  Dolphin51 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article needs cleanup, but as shown above, it clearly meets WP:CORP. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:45, 17 August 2008 (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.