Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirTreks

:{{la|AirTreks}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AirTreks Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|AirTreks}})

I still confirm my removed: "Noticeably advertorial with none of these sources actually being substantially convincing, not even minimally actually, they are either guides, trivial passing mentions or anything else clearly unacceptable; my own searches are simply not finding anything better than simple press releases, trivial passing mentions, guides and the like.". SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete for now. I did a relatively thorough google search, also looking up their old name High Adventure Travel, and wasn't impressed by anything except one excellent article [http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2005/03/07/smallb1.html] and a mediocre one [http://nymag.com/nymetro/travel/features/4191/]. Huffington Post doesn't help, and those were the only other articles that focused on the company in depth. There are some trivial mentions in good newspapers, so it might be a case of WP:Too soon. Yvarta (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, etc. Unsorted from media and music, BTW. Belongs in org. MSJapan (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Keep* - Been around for a while, subsidiary of well known travel network --Gilg89 (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)— Gilg89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - MSJapan (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Some guidance on assessing notability (the asserted lack of which was given as the rationale for deleting the article): How long something has existed isn't a factor under any of the general notability guidelines or subject-specific guidelines. Also, in general, notability isn't considered to be inherited. The notability of an international conglomerate doesn't confer notability on each of its subsidiaries. To have its own article, a subsidiary has to meet the criteria on its own. That aside, a Google search doesn't give me the impression that BootsnAll is well known either. Largoplazo (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

::To note also, this "Keep" is not at all convincing since this would actually still need better substantial sources, not PR''. SwisterTwister talk 18:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

:::Does Wall Street Journal not constitute notability? --Gilg89 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

::::Even if a company is actually covered by the Wall Street Journal, it cannot simply be PR-like such as funding or events. There has to be a convincing level of information that is simply not about the company starting or expanding. SwisterTwister talk 18:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep* This company will book around the world travel with any combination of airlines, no one alliance necessary, and will include budget airlines, making the product it offers, a RTW itinerary using any and all airlines available for each segment of a trip to get the best schedule and price, unique. No other RTW products I can find (Oneworld, Skyteam, etc) offer this specific service. I don't know how to add this information, however, and keep the copy sounding neutral, which is important in Wikipedia, right?ChrisCiolli (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)ChrisCiolli

::This Keep is not convincing for why and how the article is still questionable, especially given the Delete notes which have been listed here. SwisterTwister talk 16:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Meets WP:PSTS primary criteria standards because of depth of coverage and independence of sources Skirts89 (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete -- the coverage appears rather trivial, and the claim to notability "the only company that would book complex airfare" and "Indie, the proprietary engine" is fine for trade press, but not for encyclopedia. Acquired by another non-notable company. Overall, does not meet CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.