Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TITSA


 * 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 Samir 04:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

TITSA

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has been speedily deleted 5 times, on the grounds of spam and lack of notability, and recreated each time by the same editor, so bringing to AfD for further discussion Steve (Stephen)talk 05:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I agree that this is not an acceptably well-written article right now, but if this is a government agency, then there is no reason to keep deleting it and absolutely no reason to salt. However, if it is in fact a privately-owned, for-profit company, then I would agree with both deletion and salting, as it would then fit WP:CSD. Can someone verify the status of this company for certain? Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt per nom-EMP 05:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC) On second thought, I think some sources (and a proper article) could be obtained, so I'm neutral for now-EMP 05:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There appear to be quite a few sources available, but they're generally in Spanish - not sure what the policy would be on using them. Could simply redirect to Tenerife for the time being, of course. JavaTenor 05:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * keep if there are sources--The articles in en WP must be in english, but the sources may be in whatever language is appropriate. DGG 06:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tenerife which already has a couple sentences on TITSA. Buscruft. Herostratus 07:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect from re-creation as advertising. I'd say merge/redirect to transport in Tenerife, but given the same editor has recreated it five times, this is the only possible solution.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second . . . I see that it has been deleted 5 times, but looking at the company history, it seems that this is a government agency (although the English is so poorly written, it is hard to understand; it says, "Later in 1986 the heading of the company action is passed over the Canary Government, situation that stays at the present time."). The article also has a link titled "Tenerife goverment take over TITSA assets (spanish newspaper)", although this is in 2007.  If it is government-owned, then I think by definition an article about a government-owned public transportation entity can not be spam and does not fit WP:CSD.  Why do so many admins think that it does fit G11?  As for WP:CSD, articles about government agencies also automatically fit notability criteria, do they not?  Although I can't seem to find the word "government" anywhere in WP:N, common sense alone implies sufficient notability for government agencies to be included in an encyclopedia.  That is what we're here to to do, write the world's most comprehensive free encyclopedia, right?
 * Whether it is a government agency or not is rather irrelevant to whether a proper encyclopedia article can be created about it. Salting just prevents the person from repeatedly re-creating it. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewrite with something worthwhile. It's a transport stub at the moment. The author seems to need to read WP:5 as to what makes a good article. Just because the bus service saves whales and rescues kittens, it isn't excluded from the review process - Tiswas (t/c) 09:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has been partially rewritten. The company is a highly regulated, governmentally controlled corporation, like the U.S. Post Office.  The sources need work.  Some are contained in the External links. --Bejnar 03:32, 18 April 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.