Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take the Family


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 00:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Take the Family

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Speedied this, but the speedy removed cos there is sourcing. The editor who removed the speedy replaced it with a PROD, commenting that the coverage was run-of-the-mill. Which I agree with. And the PROD removed by (eyes do not widen in disbelief) by page creator. In a word. fails WP:GNG. TheLongTone (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Disclosure: I created the page. I would disagree that it fails notability, the site was created in 2003 and is probably the number 1 family travel guide website in the UK. They have been mentioned multiple times in the Guardian and the Daily Mail - as per sources. Surely the references speak for themselves: "The site has been rated among the '50 Best Travel Websites' in The Independent[4] and in July 2013 it was described by the Mail Online as 'Easily the best family travel website pitched at UK holidaymakers'." - You are basically disagreeing with competent travel journalists that actually know what they are talking about. If the biggest newspapers in the UK are "run of the mill" that what hope is there for any reference I would ask? - Colinmcdermott (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Journalist know what they are talking about??? I think not.TheLongTone (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I checked the refs, they are trivial mentions or daily mail. Szzuk (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2018 (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.