Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Canadian Travel Company Ltd.


 * 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. Nandesuka (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Great Canadian Travel Company Ltd.

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable travel company Think outside the box 16:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added three newspaper articles as references. --Eastmain (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (unless further sourced). No significant reliable coverage from independent sources.  The three newspaper articles (so far) look like advertorial reprints of press releases.  Any newspaper "article" about a tour operator that goes down a list of offerings and ends with the phone number to call the operator does not look like the kind of impartial editorial process that would verify the claims or establish that the subject is worth noting.  Looking at the fundamentals it has several dozen employees and $20 million in gross revenue (if one trusts the article claims).  It's not clear if "gross" means their gross agency fees or it's based on the entire cost of the package.  In the latter case that's about $3,000 per exotic package they sell X 7,000 packages per year, or about 20 tourists per day.  That's a large-ish independent travel company to be sure, but unless there's something special that sets it apart I'm dubious that such an outfit is really worth covering here. Wikidemo (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The newspaper articles are independent and represent the results of editorial filtering and judgment. Providing contact information at the end of an article is no different than providing the name and address of the venue at the end of a concert or play review. The newspapers considered this company notable because of its distinctive and uncommon offerings, such as trips to view polar bears in the wild. --Eastmain (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, not in this case. Every one of the newspaper articles is written uncritically, in more or less the same style as a neighborhood paper would announce the opening of a new store.  A concert or a play is a more singular thing, but those kinds of reviews don't establish notability either.  If that were the case then every restaurant in in the world would be notable.  Wikidemo (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   —Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GreenJoe 20:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Spam doesn't travel well. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as the secondary sources cited are clearly promotional pieces and not reliable, so there is no evidence of notability. Overall, I would say the tone and content of this advertorial fail the spam prohibition.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2008 (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.