- 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. John254 00:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Compass Tours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
There is no content, and the page appears to exist solely to advertise/promote the company. Olana North (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
No references...no assertion of notability...no content... no point in the article being kept!-- JediLofty UserTalk 09:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - okay, so we have some references now, but I still don't see why the company is notable. -- JediLofty UserTalk 09:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Fails the notability criteria in lacking multiple independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Adambro (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep following the work by Paul Erik in finding sources to establish the notability. I'm not particularly convinced by the original suggestion that this was spam. Adambro (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteWeak Keep although it still looks like advertising (if apparently accidental)Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: It doesn't appear to me to be obvious advertising - the author has many other good edits, so probably isn't involved with the company. However the article is very short and at present has no claim of notability. I've had a look on-line, but can't find any reviews of this tour from independent, relaible sources.
So I'll go with delete for the time being, without prejudice to changing my mind if the article can be improved.— Tivedshambo (t/c) 14:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - well done for finding references, Paul — Tivedshambo (t/c) 17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been some media coverage of this company, and I have gone ahead and added some content extracted from a couple of news articles. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Stub class article. Needs expansion. MickMacNee (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable, because of the good sources. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.