Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not For Tourists


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Not For Tourists

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Page reads like an advert. Orphaned for 9 months, and lacking information on the subjects importance for 8 months.  New England  Review Me!/ Go Red Sox! 05:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as orhpan and lack of sources. Possibly speedy as spam but borderline notability is asserted. Dbromage  [Talk]  05:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I've seen these books in every library and bookstore. Google News provides a good number of articles:, , , , , . And I don't think it's much of an advert. It seems fairly neutral and objective. The article creator has dipped into a wide variety of topics, so it's not the work of a SPA. Zagalejo 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zagalejo. Widely used guide. Wl219 06:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Noted by reliable sources, not an advert in tone. Realkyhick 07:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I dug up several newspaper reviews and have added these as citations to the article. --Zeborah 08:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like a nicely rounded article, that it is written for locals who have taken their surroundings for granted seems like a notable enough concept ans it reads no more like an advert than the article for Lonely Planet or The Rough Guide, the fact that it is orphaned can be fixed with some work.KTo288 09:38, 28 August 2007 (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.