Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reservations.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. Consensus is that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards at this time. North America1000 02:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Reservations.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See Articles for deletion/Reservations (website).

As written, this is a promotional listing. Since Wikipedia is not for promotion, this leaves the author and others with two choices. First, they can accept the AFD and let the article be deleted again. Second, they can build a neutral article, and this is not, and does not reflect a Google search. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment The article is neutral and only provides facts about the company based off of source material publicly available. Please highlight which language is promotional - so that I can find better source material to draw from. This is a large company that I used recently, and was surprised they didn't have a wiki page - when competitors like booking.com have a page. Gurutsm (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - No, no, no. I don't intend to help neutralize a promotional listing when there is already an AFD that is an adequate basis for G4.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG, references fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as they rely almost exclusively on material from company sources and/or routine business and funding annoucements. -- HighKing ++ 14:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Repeating my rationale from the AfD on the previous instance: "An article on an intermediating company website, with content and references predominantly primary or routine announcements of the partnership deals inherent to that kind of business. No evidence of notability, whether as website or company." The added Q&As with the founder do not change that position. AllyD (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm just not finding the in-depth coverage needed here. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:04, 2 September 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.