Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism Concern (3rd nomination)
: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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
=[[Tourism Concern]]=
- {{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism Concern}}
:{{la|Tourism Concern}} – (
:({{Find sources|Tourism Concern}})
Lack of notability, reads like an ad, possible COI based on 2010 dispute with the article's creator; I previously nominated for a speedy 4 years ago. R3ap3R (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
:: First time I nominated AfD, it appears that consensus was DELETE but it wasn't done. R3ap3R (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
:::To clarify, R3ap3R, are you disclosing that you have a COI, from your previous involvement? --doncram 10:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::::No, I am saying that the creator of the article seems to work for Tourism Concern. R3ap3R (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Based on the AFD nomination and my first glance at the article, I wondered if the nonprofit had been active in 2010 but faded away. However there is recent 2014 actions, report in the news when i browse in Google news. I see that references have been added to the article since this AFD started. I just added another 2014 reference and edited some more. Notability seems clearly established. --doncram 10:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Based on the current reflist and my own brief search I found more than enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:GNG. I agree that it could use some work to tone down the prose, but it's not egregious enough or pervasive enough to delete. --— Rhododendrites talk | 23:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
: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.