Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directline holidays

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The result was Keep - sufficiently notable, nomination withdrawn. I slapped a cleanup tag on it though. Ew. David Gerard 14:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page, as it stands, appears to be little more than advertising for what at least appears to be a relatively non-notable travel web site, with very little encyclopedic content. At the least this needs a major rewrite, but I would think deletion more appropriate at this stage. Plasma 10:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It depends how you define “non-notable”, where is the line drawn?
  • Public awareness Wikipedia already has inclusions for expedia, ebookers, lastminute, kayak.com, sidestep. The last two are unknown outside of the US.
  • Google page rank Ebookers has a google page rank of just 3/10, directline-holidays.co.uk 5/10.
  • Google search results Google ranks directline-holidays.co.uk as the most important site for “cheap package holidays” in the UK.
  • Alexa Alexa measures directline-holidays.co.uk website as rank 41,144 in the world, Thomascook.co.uk as rank 2,071,783
  • Dmoz This directory (sister site of wikipedia) hand picks notable sites for inclusion and has an entry for directline-holidays.co.uk
    
• Just for the inclusion in Dmoz (where editors are chosen by their experience and understanding of a category) this entry should be allowed.-Prechto 13:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep.^{After some consideration I've decided to revoke my opinion and leave it as merely a comment. The following research on my part does not have any particular relation to WP:CORP, although that is by no mal-intent or ignorance of mine; I was doing the best I could to contribute to the discussion under the circumstances - the circumstances being that no one had offered an opinion except for Prechto.} Prechto makes some good points. The company at least seems to do some major business: it bought one of the first video advertising spots on google videos. A google search returned over 45,000 results, most of which seemed to be relevant. It certainly seems that this company is UK-based, which explains why I've never seen an advertisement. I think the article needs a MAJOR rewrite, but that can be done. Srose (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• None of those things define notability, for the reasons given in Wikipedia:Search engine test and the fact that "If article X then article Y." is a flawed argument, amongst others. The notability criteria for companies can be found at WP:CORP. None of the above actually addresses those criteria. Uncle G 13:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unfortunately, Uncle G, I do not live in the U.K. and, therefore, have no means of obtaining any business periodicals or regular newspapers. The reason that my argument was labeled weak is for this exact reason. I do, however, believe that there is evidence that it must be throwing a good deal of money around to have gotten one of the first advertising spots on Google Video. Srose (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: I'm dubious. I've never heard of this firm before, however if they primarily advertise online (which according to the article is their sole form of advertising these days) then it's not surprising. Compared to a known UK travel firm like Thomson Holidays (Alexa rank ca. 16000) they're really pushing obscurity. Sockatume 17:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep (from nominator) - I probably should slightly elaborate on my initial reason for listing. The initial version that I listed came off, at least in my opinion, as containing little in the way of buzzwords and what basically boiled down to light-on-content marketing blurb, without giving a particularly goo dargument for notability. Honestly lacking any expertise in the area, but rather dissatisfied with what I felt was more in-line with a marketing brochure than an encyclopedia, I made this listing (when in hindsight I probably should have raised it on the talk page first, since my problems were more about the content than the existence of the article altogether, even though I felt it met vfd criteria). Having seen the changes made by the article's author since then, I'm fairly happy in that it comes off a lot more neutral, rather than as an endorsement, and contains a lot more factual content. Plasma 14:57, 30 September 2006 (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.