Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travel Cuts

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 of the debate was keep. Sango123 02:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travel Cuts

Vanity, unverified, and really a non-notable travel agency. Extremely Strong Delete Ardenn 01:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. What the wha??? This is a Canada-wide travel agency that has expanded beyond locations at university campuses. There are even offices overseas (I recall there is one in London, assuming it's still there). Certainly satisfies the criteria of WP:CORP. I fail to see the vanity, and the basis of non-notability mystifies me. Agent 86 01:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable subsidiary of the Canadian Federation of Students, which is the largest student organization in Canada. Also, it has over 256,000 Google results [1]. Perhaps also merge to Canadian Federation of Students instead.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect - I changed my vote from rewrite to merge. It does seem that this would be better suited to be part of the CFS article - pm_shef 03:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. The only outside references I could find were for the lawsuit (which counts, but is not enough). All other relevant hits appeared to be ads through various colleges and so hard to filter out. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have cleaned it up. It is a notable service to students. It has 50 locations. There is some history to it. This article is not advertising. Ground Zero | t 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Many travel agencies have multiple locations, that doesn't make them notable. Ardenn 02:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess the issue would be quickly settled, then, if "non-notability" were an accepted grounds for deletion. But it isn't, not matter how much some deletionists like to bandy it about as if it were. Now that the article is cleaned up and linked from the CFS article, Wikipedia will not be improved by deleting this article. Ground Zero | t 02:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It is grounds for deletion. No personal attacks. Ardenn 02:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I did not intend to attack you personally, and do not believe that that I have. Let me clarify that I am not calling you a deletionsist. Please identify where in Wikipedia's deletion policy non-notability is a grounds for deletion. WP:NOTABLE, an essay on notability, states clearly (in bold text): "There is no official policy on notability." Ground Zero | t 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Canadian Federation of Students. Not notable for its own article Bwithh 03:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep appears to satisfy WP:CORP. Yanksox ^(talk) 03:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:CORP is not policy. Ardenn 03:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Neither is WP:NOTABLE, a basis on which you nominated this for deletion. The only binding policy which your nomination alludes to is WP:V, and the facts in the article are verifiable. Agent 86 03:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • When one cites another source, they are not claiming it to be an all knowing source. The person is citing it as a reason to keep or delete. Yanksox ^(talk) 03:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Article satifies wikipedia NPOV guidelines and WP:CORP as well all information is factual and verified Dr sean chronic RSX 03:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep appears to satisfy WP:CORP which is not policy but does not need to be. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, satisfies WP:CORP, information is verifiable per WP:V. --Coredesat talk 04:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have bought plane tickets there. TruthbringerToronto 07:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Large, important and verifiable corporation, and the lawsuits make the article a lot more informative than most WP:CORP violators. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Definitely notable, doesn't read as vanity at all, and easy to verify. --Ckatz 08:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Although it doesn't look like a vanity page to me, I can't see anything particularly notable about it. Blaise Joshua 12:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest keep possible It is a pretty prominent chain, as far as I can tell here in Vancouver -- multiple locations in a single city, and one of the most well-known student discount travel agencies in Canada. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well-written, verifiable, nationally known. Kirjtc2 14:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Real, Verified, Notable, Yadda, Yadda WilyD 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The largest student travel company in Canada is notable. BoojiBoy 15:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Easily verifiable -- just pick up a phone book in any major Canadian city -- and certainly notable. 23skidoo 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep regardless of nominator's intentions. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 21:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'll occasionally suggest that an article be deleted on notability grounds (while notability isn't usually a grounds for deletion, sometimes things are worth deleting on common sense grounds), but seriously... the subject of the article is decades old, involved in a decently high-profile lawsuit, significantly impacts the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands, and serves as an useful illustrator of a couple of things mentioned in other Wikipedia articles (hence the wikilinks). Keep it around. Captainktainer * Talk 01:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A travel agency for Canadian students? It's probably pretty notable, at least in Canada (However, not judging fully on notability). Green caterpillar 02:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Keep. This operation is on or near pretty well every campus in Canada, including campuses such as the University of New Brunswick which are CASA schools (i.e. not members of CFS). - Jord 21:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable. I've used it before myself, and I actually just drove by one a couple hours ago that I hadn't seen before. OzLawyer 23:44, 1 July 2006 (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.