Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travelmatesonline.com

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, Article fails the relevant notability guideline as none of the references in the article provide non-trivial coverage of the website as required by the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Travelmatesonline.com

Travelmatesonline.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Well i found another website which i found its not notable to me, What do you guys think?--Pookeo9 (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. References are enough to establish notability. --Eastmain (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Sure, has been mentioned here and there. This mostly shows that they have a good PR department. Article creator Mywikiikiwym (talk · contribs) has not edited anything else, so he must be that talented PR person... There is no hope of this article ever resembling an encyclopedic article about a topic with any depth. We delete articles about websites that have not been discussed anywhere in third-party sources, but that does not mean that we keep all articles about websites that have two or three such outside references. No encyclopedic value + created by PR department of said website = nuke it. Pichpich (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Non-encyclopedic spam. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Remember what Wikipedia:Notability says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. Has objective evidence been furnished to establish this? --Eastmain (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep I don't know how reliable all those sources are, but it seems that such has been furnished, making the website notable. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This is written neutrally as possible. However, this is clearly a self-posted profile from the company, and none of the sources discuss the site in any depth; virtually all of them merely include this site in a list of other similar sites with little or no commentary about this one. In a couple, there is significant commentary about other sites. In short -- no nontrivial coverage here. Mangojuice^talk 15:25, 25 April 2008 (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.