Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TUI 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The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure.) --Lambiam 14:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

TUI Travel

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The entire article is sourced only from the company's own website(s), thus it clearly fails Notability, Reliable Sources and probably also falls foul of Advertising. I'm surprised that an article about such a large company has managed to exist for so long without gathering any Independent Sources. Roger (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep No evidence of WP:BEFORE. The Guardian has a lot of stories about it, e.g.  - their site search indicates 168 stories mentioning the company.  Other papers also have extensive coverage e.g. Independent, Telegraph index.  It'll take work to look through all the results and create a good article, but TUI Travel is without a doubt notable. And it's not advertising, just dry business information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep – per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. This company has been reported as the world's largest tour operator: . This topic fully passes WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Company is clearly notable and much discssed as per sources located above. Article can be improved by normal editing. AllyD (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep a notable travel company, rubbish article but it should be improved not deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 23:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - company is patently highly notable, it is one of the largest travel companies in the world, in fact the largest by some measures.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Should add, I am sure, in this case, the AfD was well intentioned, and do recognise that the article has some major issues in terms of the failure to use third party citations in the text. There are actually a number linked at the bottom of the article, but they are not utilised within the article text. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As pointed out above, this is a very large and well established player in the tourism market, and notable by any reasonable standard. Factual information taken from company accounts, reports and websites is acceptable in WP because it is audited and subject to legal regulation ensuring accuracy. Paradoxically, independent sources are not reliable unless they can be verified against such sources for the very obvious reason that it cannot accurately be obtained in any other way. Where such information is not published, external estimates need to be qualified for that reason. --AJHingston (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily a large and well-known enough company for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw deletion nomination. Will somebody please use the independent sources in the article already. Comment: For such a huge and allegedly* notable company it's a really crappy article, not much more than a "directory" of corporate divisions and subsidiaries. (*IMNSHO notability is only "alleged" until such time as the independent sources are actually used in an article. Articles should not be allowed to exist indefinitely without the actual citation of independent sources. There should be a "use it or lose it" time limit for adding such sources.) Roger (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Northamerica1000(talk) 14:54, 28 June 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.