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 in one form or another. Despite a long discussion, there is no consensus whether to keep as a stand-alone article or to merge it to TripAdvisor, but a merge proposal can and should be discussed at the talk page anyway.

Despite being often cited, none of the sections of WP:NOT mentioned (e.g. WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTGUIDE) actually prescribe deletion as the only way to handle such content. On the contrary, per WP:WHATISTOBEDONE, deletion is only one possible way to handle it, with editing to remove the problematic content (in line with WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD) being mentioned first.

As for the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument, that section of WP:NOT does not actually talk about some kind of coverage but instead talks about how content is presented here. I think what SwisterTwister means is the WP:SPIP section of WP:N, however, there is no consensus that his analysis of the sources is correct. SoWhy 08:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FlipKey[edit]

AfDs for this article:
FlipKey (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)

Last AfD was deleted, and still we are here with this. Routine coverage, non notable startup. usual for promotion alone. Previously done A7/ G11. Deleted earlier and created again. Salt and Definite spam. Light2021 (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FlipKey passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There is enough information from the sources for a standalone article.

    Contrary to what editors say above, there is much negative material about FlipKey. Sources have information like:

    Given these terms, the Haggler would be reluctant to rent from FlipKey, which is owned by TripAdvisor. But what gives the Haggler real pause is that the Better Business Bureau currently gives the company an F rating, along with an average customer review of 1.01 out of five stars.

    And:

    Cons: Lodgings not inspected. A booking fee may be required. No concierge service.

    Cunard (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the sole "criticism" would still actually violate the specific policy WP:Wikipedia is not a travel guide, since this isn't the place to host whatever the customer ratings were; the only best place for that is either the relevant travel agency or the company website. Also, not only given the other policies against the clear promotionalism, but this one criticism wouldn't be enough to outweigh it. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:01, 10 July 2017 (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.
More