Talk:Wotif.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on November 20, 2007. The result of the discussion was withdrawn (see discussion for details). |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
Wotif.com is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Brisbane. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
A fact from Wotif.com appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on November 20, 2007. |
 |
[edit] Speedy Deletion
This page qualifies for speedy deletion because it is an advertisement and because it does not assert importance/significance. Just because the author could find published articles on the company does not make it important. Wikipedia is not a yellowpages. Mitsein (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed the speedy deletion tag for the following reasons:
-
- The article does not read like an advertisment; the material is mostly factual and does not go out of its way to endorse the company/website.
- There is secondary coverage in reliable sources (The Brisbane Times, Australian IT).
- The $57 million dollar bid for travel.com.au is large enough to warrant notability.
- I believe that together these things make the article worthy of keeping. Lankiveil (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
Gonna have to disagree with you there.
-
- I agree that the article doesn't read like an advertisement--but it is one. Assume for a second that you were a sales rep for a large company trying to expand into creative forms of internet advertising. Wikipedia would be a great venue to do this. All you would have to do would be to create an article that didn't "look" like an advertisement. How would you do this? Throw in some random facts about your company with sources and all. You wouldn't even have to lie. You could list a company's services which would be great advertisement. Now, this is just a hypothetical situation. I'm not implying that the author of this article works for wotif.com. I'm just saying that we shouldn't let non-notable articles on organizations exist at all (on the principle that they function as ads for a company and could be intentional advertisements). Free advertising is an acceptable loss when creating articles regarding notable companies, but we need to be careful in determining what notable is...which brings me to my (or your) second point.
-
- Now you are claiming that an article written by someone with no relation to the company, which don't look like ads, should be deleted because they MIGHT "function" as ads, whatever that means. I don't buy that. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- There's secondary coverage by notable sources for most businesses in the world. Just because a business is included in a newspaper article does not mean it deserves a wikipedia page. It's important to look at what the articles are about. If the articles are about normal business stuff that many many many business go through, then the existence of such articles alone is not grounds for existence of an article. On the other hand, if the articles make the business stand out somehow, then these articles probably indicate that the business is notable. Let's use this test. The three articles are about A) a change in CEO B) a merger C) another article about the merger. (I'd like to point out here that three of the 8 sources are from wotif.com itself...) These articles could be about any corporation in the world. Not grounds for notability. Hell, if being mentioned in a newspaper article is grounds for notability then there should be a wikipedia article about me. Secondly, I didn't nominate this for speedy deletion because it's not notable. I nominated it for speedy deletion because it doesn't assert importance or significance (which is on the criteria for speedy deletion page i linked). Even if the business is notable, the page does not indicate why the business is important. At all. Look at the page. It's just random facts.
-
- I think you underestimate the bar for getting mentioned in a major newspaper, and seriously underestimate the number of businesses in the world. Anyway, "lots of companies have articles about them" is NOT an argument for revisiting the notability criterion. Lots of notable companies are not listed on Wikipedia. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- See previous point. No need to have articles about every business that tried to buy another business. Also, using buying power as a criteria for notability isn't a great idea because it encourages writing articles about companies with more money rather than companies that are culturally/historically/etc significant. While extremely large companies can be economically significant, I would still hesitate to use buyingpower as a criteria because there's no brightline between what's enough money and what isn't. Extremely rich companies (Microsoft comes to mind) are notable for reasons other than "they have money" or "one time they bought this company."
-
- Repeating your point doesn't make it truer. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I chose inline point-by-point comments above, but an overarching point for me is: If you think the criteria at WP:CORP are wrong, go debate them. But in the meantime, respect that if a company HAS the coverage described in WP:CORP, it is, by Wikipedia definitions, notable; if that coverage is documented in the article, it should not be deleted for non-notability. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if I'm allowed to retag this for speedy deletion, but I think my response is sufficient to reopen the debate, so I will. Leaving the tag off would prevent discussion from occurring. Mitsein (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- This page does not meet the speedy deletion criteria G11, as written at WP:CSD#G11. Do not retag this article - if you still think it violates our inclusion policies, using the articles for deletion process. Speedy deletion is used generally for blatant cases, which this most certainly not. This factor is duly noted in the wording of CSD G11 — "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion" (emphasis mine). Daniel 09:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I find this laughable, but I suppose others disagree. I'm going to take it to AfD just to get some real consensus. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 09:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk • contribs)
