Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accessible tourism
- 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The result was Keep - Nomination withdrawn (Non administrator closing per Non-administrators closing discussions). --Tikiwont 12:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Accessible tourism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
I've been keeping an eye on this article for the last day or so. The author of the article (User:Luisvarela) has self identified as working for a company that deals with "accessible tourism". The whole thing reads like an ad, in fact a major portion of it was removed because it was a copyvio from.. ads (see Talk:Accessible tourism). The author of the article keeps removing {{ad}} from the article, despite the lack of improvement. Now, there might be enough to this specific market to warrant an article, so I'm taking it to AFD instead of marking it as a speedy for advertisement. Ned Scott 08:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The author has also uploaded a number of pictures from his company's flyers. I'm not sure if he fully understands what it means to release these images under a free license, especially considering they contain the company's logo. -- Ned Scott 08:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - reads like an advert. -- Rehnn83 Talk 13:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Doesn't seem like an advertisement. But it does need to be rewritten.--Edtropolis 14:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - 36K google hits, does not truly read like an advert, but again probably contains OR and only cites one source. At the very least it seems like it could be a valid encyclopedia topic.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteunless someone shows a reliable source that uses this term besides the companies marketing it. And the article was spam in my opinion, considering that external link (which I have removed). I can't comment on the source, not speeking spanish and all. Someguy1221 22:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. Someguy1221 09:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is on the concept, which is N. The term seems to be the usual one. The "companies' marketing it are the quasi-governmental National tourism Offices of each of the European countries & some elsewhere, and many cites, provinces, etc. I added 8 or 9, and only stopped so it wouldn't be a web directory. And I have at least one conference. More's there for the searching. DGG 06:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to answer my concerns. Now knowing this, I'm fine with keeping it and just marking it for cleanup for any other concerns. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then Redirect to Tourism#Niche_tourism.--Mike18xx 05:37, 18 June 2007 (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.