Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CheapTickets

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 Keep per consensus PeaceNT 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CheapTickets

CheapTickets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

stub with little encyclopedic content, appears to exist solely as a marketing aid Phaedrus86 11:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Added 31 Jan: it looks like I have misunderstood the guidelines for commercial site notability. Sorry about that, I will go study WP:CORP so I don't waste your time next time. Phaedrus86 00:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I believe the company meets WP:CORP as it has had multiple non-trivial published works written about it. See the articles linked in the references section. I also disagree with the assertion that it exists solely as a marketing aid -- the first paragraph states what the company does and summarizes their product offerings, while the rest of the article summarizes the company's history, which I would consider encyclopedic. Are there gaps in the company's history? Probably. That's why its a stub. Which, by definition, doesn't have much encyclopedic content. As far as it existing as a marketing aid, you could probably make that argument for virtually every company article, possibly except for those with a Criticisms section. -- Hawaiian717 16:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Concur with Hawaiian717. If the marketing angle is too much, prehaps some POV cleanup could be done to keep it encyclopedic.

Forgot to sign again... Arakunem 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:CORP; at most, adding the {{advert}} template is all that was necessary if there were concerns about the tone of the article. Agent 86 20:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article appears to have sufficient independent published references for verification and notability purposes. Any POV concerns about parts of the article should be handled at that article's talk page. Dugwiki 21:49, 30 January 2007 (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.