Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travelfusion


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Travelfusion

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. No evidence of notability - just another travel search engine, not the biggest, not the best, not award winning, etc. References are all based on PR material. Fails WP:COMPANY, WP:RS andy (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC) References are not based on PR material and in fact are Reliable Sources based on the WP:RS standards of "news organisations." Tnooz, EyeForTravel and TravelMole are all considered to be industry leaders in travel technology media and therefore would be acceptable as reliable news organisations. The company is also the only one of its competitors to use location-based trip planning through GoogleMaps, allowing users to plug in specific geographic data/addresses to find the most convenient travel options. Kefinlondon (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)KefinLondon
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  --  Beloved  Freak  13:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable company/web context; article is mainly promotional. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course they're not reliable sources! They are clearly rewrites of press releases - and sometimes not even rewrites. E.g. ref #2: "TRAVELfusion, a world leader in travel commerce, announces the launch of…" and ref #5: "TRAVELfusion, a world leader in travel commerce, announces the launch of…" andy (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And your argument against Tnooz as a reliable source? Would you be more comfortable if I removed the EyeForTravel references then? Kefinlondon (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)KefinLondon
 * The reliability of these particular publishers is irrelevant. WP:RS clearly states that reliability is affected by the publisher, the author and the piece of work itself. An advert in the NYT, for example, is not reliable while a properly sourced piece written by a journalist would be. Rewritten PR material is not reliable. andy (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete I agree. Not notable. rest per nom. Likely created to promote company further. Outback the koala (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spam for a non-notable company. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:12, 11 April 2010 (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.