Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TravelFox


 * 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. Strongest arguments were from delete !voters. Sources shown were unreliable, not enough to establish verafiability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

TravelFox

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP, namely significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. A Google news search for TravelFox shows only hits for a shoe company and an apparently unrelated Irish travel agent. The article itself currently has six sources. Number 1 is to a blog (saching.com) that does not pass WP:RS. Number 2 is to the Al Gomhuria newspaper. Unfortunately the link is only given to the front page of the newspaper’s website, not to the article itself. From the title, the article appears to announce the establishment of the company’s website. Number 3 is to the travel section of the Los Angeles Times. This newspaper’s website has extensive archives, but does not list any article with the title given or any article containing the word TravelFox. It is possibly print-only, or there is a likely chance that the reference is incorrect. The article is used to source the statement that the company earns money from referrals. Number 4 appears to be a self-written posting to an online directory, and does not establish notability. Number 5 is from the company’s own website. Number 6 does not refer to TravelFox. I have deleted a few other questionable sources, for example an untitled article from “Business Weekly” on the grounds that Ulrich's Periodicals Directory says there is no publication with that name. Another source was an undated article, with a web link given that did not link to the article itself. Another deleted source was to a September 2011 episode of Business World News, the website of which was last updated in 2008. The website acknowledges that Business World News is paid by companies to make promotional videos.

The bottom line is that there are only two potentially reliable sources. Although each is apparently a recent article, neither can be located on the Internet. Assuming that the references are correct and they both exist in print, still neither source appears to give in-depth coverage as required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, neither of these sources seems to establish notability, e.g., being a travel search engine is not itself notable, and earning money from referrals is not itself notable. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The article's notability is based on the fact that it is one of the first Egyptian companies to survive the countries revolution of 2011 and this was referenced. It was removed by Logical Cowboy (talk) for the fact that he states "only given to the front page of the newspaper’s website", yet as stated in WP:NOENG "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation" and yet in my reference I did input the business article title (in English)  "Business rise in Cairo, and beyond" , and of course his original reason for removal was  "no date given" . The other notable thought is this website company is a first to use metasearch engines approach, and coming out from the Middle East more specifically. All other references have been removed based on the evidence according to Logical Cowboy (talk) that if it's not in Ulrich's Periodicals Directory than it must not exist at all. Under  WP:PAYWALL implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. I don't see how Ulrich's Periodicals Directory has any authoritative power to decide what's a source or what’s not. Finally it appears that Logical Cowboy (talk) has gone on some kind of vindictive run, after his first deletion attempt was  unsuccessful  . And has almost been WP:HOUNDING me on several locations       I've told him I will retrieve my logs for more sources to resolve anymore referencing issues. -- ‎Jetijonez   Fire!  06:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have provided a list of deleted sources, with reasons for deletion, here: Talk:TravelFox Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: the majority of Egyptian companies survived the revolution, so this does not justify an article, and the sources (with Logical Cowboy) don't either. Nothing personal, just not notable.-- Dewritech (talk)  11:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article was already declined by an Admin for speedy deletion. I remember a comment that I left on the talk page earlier as well. If the reason is that there are no reliable sources (or no sources at all), there are some out there like HERE and HERE. --Morning277 (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a note to the two editors who are edit warring over this article - When editing articles, make sure to Assume Good Faith. It looks like there has been so much discussion between you two that you could have both just moved on and started making valuable contributions to Wikipedia instead of wasting your time trying to get your points across to each other. Also, Rfd is NOT a medium to settle disputes between each other. Keep in mind that this is a process to discuss if an article should be kept or deleted, not a place to Illustrate A Point and disrupt Wikipedia. --Morning277 (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Response Dear Morning, thanks for your vote. With that said, the fact that this was declined for a speedy makes it perfectly appropriate for AfD.  In fact, that's what the admin recommended.  Your two sources are interesting but they are not WP:RS and do not establish notability per WP:CORP.  Your other comments are off-base.  Let's stick to the content of the article and leave out the personal drama.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with my comments, take it to my talk page. As again, Afd is not to be used for issues such as this. --Morning277 (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Response Actually, I did go to your talk page. Let's continue the conversation there if you like.  AfD is the place for AfD.  Everything in this AfD nomination is about the article and the rules of WP. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator's investigation of the sources to find there's no substance to them. Surviving a revolution in itself has no relationship to notability, especially when it sounds like most companies did. (And I have no idea how a company can be one of the "first" to survive - it did or it didn't. "First" implies some didn't survive and then started surviving again. DreamGuy (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The other notable view here is, this company is one of the first to use metasearch engines (for travel websites) and is one first internet based companies of this type to come out of that part of the world -- ‎Jetijonez  Fire!  05:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP. I searched independently and found no in-depth coverage of the company or web site.  ‎Jetijonez, you wrote that TravelFox is notable because it is one of the first to use metasearch engines so I searched for "travel metasearch' and found dozens of sites; a couple listed TravelFox.  You wrote that it "is one first internet based companies of this type to come out of that part of the world."  Citation?  Source?  The article says "Currently Kayak.com is the only other site that offers similar services" but the cited Bloomberg Businessweek article doesn't support that claim.  I'm certain that Wego.com and Momondo.com and a host of other metasearch travel companies would disagree.  If TravelFox were truly notable, multiple reliable sources would be available to support claims made in the article.  I must !vote for deletion.  DocTree (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 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.