Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewOrleans.com


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 23:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

NewOrleans.com

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional article created by a known paid article writer who often is willing to write articles on marginal subjects. Just passes G11 in my opinion, but has no real sources for notability. The nearest is the one in DNJjournal, a source whose reliability I do not think we have previously considered. Prod removed by someone whom I presume is another of the writer's many sockpuppets.  DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:WEB as article is merely a description of the site's contents. We are not a mirror site here to improve their SEO rankings. The site's contents do not appear to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works or won any notable awards. Although it touts itself as the "official" tourism site for the city, note there is also neworleansonline.com which claims the same thing, and it appears to in fact be quasi-official (in the way a chamber of commerce is quasi-official) as it is run by the |New Orleans Tourism Marketing Corporation, whose board is "appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council". The geodomain tidbit might be worth a short summary in the Geodomain article. Valfontis (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, promotional, fails WP:WEB. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep, the entry may need an edit on the travel guide/hotel sections, but delete? No. Will other transactional and geodomains get the same treatment? Vegas.com, Orbitz, Expedia. The site has only been around in its current mode for a year -- all things considered, the published works (and sources) are adequate and legit. Source of article is irrelevant. Molly Staples (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * — Molly Staples (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Blocked sock 86.** IP (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OSE for why comparison to other articles isn't generally a strong argument. More importantly, does it meet Wikipedia's notability guideline, especially WP:GNG? tedder (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, This entry is just as valid and relevant as other other transactional sites and geodomains such as Vegas.com, Orbitz, Expedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwhite2012 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * — Wikiwhite2012 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Blocked sock 86.** IP (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is known as an "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" argument and is generally regarded as invalid by closing administrators. The question is why THIS should exist in terms of it being the subject of multiple instances of substantial coverage in independently-published so-called "reliable sources." Is this an entity examined in this manner in trade journals, etc.? THAT is the question. For what it's worth, of the three other companies you mention I suspect the first is most similar to this one and would suffer a similar fate if a notability challenge were made and the other two are much larger entities that would probably pass a notability challenge instantly. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it encouraged me to open WP:Articles for deletion/VEGAS.com (2nd nomination), so not completely useless, for once. 86.** IP (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This might reach the level of external link for New Orleans, but certainly is not on the level of its own article. Pretty much every single town out there has one or more pages like this. They hardly rise to the level of being notable in themselves, unless they manage to horribly embarrass themselves somehow (e.g. the Scunthorpe problem). 86.** IP (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete none of the content of the article establishes notability. OSbornarfcontribs. 04:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Clearly commercial in intent. No opinion as to notability. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 11 April 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.