Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zuji


 * 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) 18:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Zuji

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Another vaguely promotional article about a company. The sources I have been able to find verify that the company exists, but they also are all passing mentions of the sort that every company, no matter how notable, can be expected to get. There's lots of companies in the world; most are not notable, and this one isn't. Reyk  YO!  08:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm reluctant to spend any time on rescuing this article by adding sources, mostly because all the bold capitals give me a headache, but the awards would appear to be genuine and important enough to confirm notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Travelocity, of which it is a wholly owned subsidiary. --MelanieN (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - This being a $37M company it might barely pass notability guidelines, but the article reads like promotional material, has almost no references and was only really contributed to by WP:SPA Travelbug007 (contrib log: ). Smocking (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete in accordance with WP:CSD. No claim to notability is asserted, nor is significant coverage from any reliable, third party sources cited to support such a claim in accordance with WP:CORP. This ariticle is pure spam: burn with fire. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:21, 21 February 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.