Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conquest Vacations

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. If there are sources to be shown, I suggest running them past the other voters in the afd. If that persuades them, otherwise the outcome is clear. The vote concerning sources was made 15 days ago and this has had a relist and a quality vote would have provided them at the time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest Vacations

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Conquest Vacations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only articles I can find about this company are that it was abruptly shut down; that alone does not establish notability. Most of the article's content is not encyclopedia content Wikieditor600 (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are quite a few references through Newspapers.com that meet WP:ORGCRIT. However, the article needs to be cleaned of promotional and un-encyclopedic material. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability. The rather vague "quite a few references" reasoning without providing links isn't compelling to me and it says a lot that the most common references are about the company's sudden closure (but again I can't find one that meets CORPDEPTH). Topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you by any chance look through Newspapers.com? If not, I will be happy to supply the links later today. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that the dearth of persistent, independent coverage indicates the company fails our notability guidelines. ——Serial ^# 12:19, 26 May 2020 (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.