Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Touristlink

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. Michig (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Touristlink

Touristlink (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)

Does not wiki:GNG criteria Shrikanthv (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve - Good level of coverage online from WP:RS. There was initially a serious COI issue, but this has been cleaned up. Employees of the company would be well advised to quit editing the page, however. Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can live with an employer tidying the article up or editing it from time to time .... But as seen here [1] there only purpose here is to promote there company and if Kept they'll only return and no doubt add all the crap that's been wiped so far, So will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If the community want this promotional shit to stay than who am I to get in the way of that!, In the end this'll get kept so may aswell go with the flow!. –Davey2010^Talk 05:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Davey2010: The article presently does not have a promotional tone, and is written in an encyclopedic style. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not the point - The article was created simply to promote the company, I completely understand there's sources which help its notability but there main aim wasn't to create a notable article but to just ignore policies and create one they're affiliated with, Anyway I've said my peace and we all have different views on these things (I guess the world would be boring if we all agreed on everything :), Thanks). –Davey2010^Talk 07:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG and best is only upcoming firm and new social network .Further none of the references this this ,this ,this and none of the other references establish notability and are not WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve - kindly check the following link Hindustan Times Article IndiaTimes Article Nagpur Today Article Times Of India humanipo.com You can find more references at Touristlink Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakkailashgupta (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin - Deepakkailashgupta is not only associated with TouristLink but he's also the articles creator. –Davey2010^Talk 20:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

will make sure that the deleted content will not be added again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakkailashgupta (talk • contribs) 22:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems notable and unbiased in present form. Mr RD 15:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ITSNOTABLE ins't a valid reason for keeping an article. –Davey2010^Talk 03:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:WEBCRIT. Source examples include:

• TouristLink.com: A social travel platform. Money Control. (A CNBC affilate).
• New Social Network Connects Travelers with Destinations, Experts. Mashable. (A news website)
• How to travel solo, backpack and have fun. Hindustan Times.
• Nagpur travel Survey: Tourists prefer local stay over resorts, water parks. Nagpur Today.

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 21 March 2015 (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.