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. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Randall Travel[edit]

Martin Randall Travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Previous AFD result was "Delete-Spam". Page has not been updated with non-biased 3rd party references, as page continues to read as an advert SpikeJones (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete A possible G11 here, plus I think this is a WP:SNOW cause. --Numyht (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It's not optimal, but decidedly different from the previously deleted versions. It now actually has some independent sources. I'm prepared to give the author the benefit of the doubt if the self-referential sources are cut down to a bare minimum to assert non-controversial stuff in the next few days/weeks. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (I created it) Could somebody please talk me through the problems? I don't know what G11 means. I will address the problems individually. It "continues to read as an advert"? I have been critical, much more so than last time, when I was too new to wikipedia to understand the concept of advertising on it. I thought that the better I made it sound to a certain level, the more likely it would be seen as worthy of inclusion. I don't see where the advertising is. I find it a very hard line to tread, between not advertising and proving that it is worthy as an article. Obviously, I think it should be kept: it is as neutral as I could make it (if somebody else went through it that would help a lot), it is worthy of an inclusion (National Geographic is about to run something on it, I think: it fills the criteria of coverage from non-biased sources, as well as being significant for the number of awards etc it has won. Should I make a list of them? A plea: Please google Martin Randall Travel, and read a page on it that is not written by the company. I will do as MacGyver said, but I don't quite get what he means. I referenced certain facts from the least controversial source there is: what the website says. Are you implying that the website may be wrong/lying? Help me out here. I simply do not see what is wrong. The website quotes 48 excellent reviews (implying lots of others not so good and not quoted), and actually there was one in the Daily Mail on the weekend. Unfortunately, the company's clientele is rather too old to be overly familiar with, or of interest to, the internet, removing a lot of potential sources that only appear in papers. I will say this: I am losing my faith in wikipedia. The more I see of it, the more I see deletion being used as the easiest way forward. It is my personal opinion (which should not interfere with this process) that this is wrong in any case that is not spam. Not believing that this is spam, I would vote keep whether I had created the page or not.Fuzzibloke (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by demonstrating the article subject has been covered substantially by reliable media. I don't know if being included as a travel marketer in travel magazines is sufficient. What makes this company important enough to be included in an encyclopedia? This is usually determined by showing its been covered by good sources as a notable entity, which I don't think includes acknowledging its existence or noting that it sells tours. I'm having trouble finding notability according to our guidelines. Is there something in about its history or a source that talks about the company as a substantial and important subject? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I did a casual Google search for "Martin Randall Travel", and only one News result appeared (as an advert for a travel trip). There were no unbiased 3rd-party pages in the first 100 articles returned either. One page, from Frommer's, simply reiterated a quote that already existed on the site. The refs in the current article are (mainly) from the company itself, and do not provide any insight as to the *encyclopedic* reason for the article. As WP policy states, just because a company exists, does not mean a WP article needs to exist as well.SpikeJones (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment G11 above refers to the criteria for speedy deletion - Numyht is opining that the article is blatant advertising. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Creator's Comment Thanks for that. This article is not blatant advertising, I promise. You will note how at least one of my more critical points needs a citation; I had trouble finding harsh articles. But, if you want, I could list some articles here which show that it fulfils the criteria. I repeat that the website itself lists forty eight articles; isn't that something? It is unfortunate that so many clients are above "the internet age" (my parents being younger than the average). There are several articles talking about MRT. What is the definition of "unbiased"? Are the writers not allowed to have been on a tour, in case they became biased from it? I know that not every company deserved a WP page, but a leader in its field with loads of awards and twenty thousand current subscribers, renowned for its orgaanisation etc, surely deserves a mention more than a lot of articles. The links to the website merely prove something from the primary source, but I have included secondary sources.

There are two problems found in this article: advertising (which is reparable, and which I will do a lot to stop) and notability, which is inherent and unchangeable. Let's face it: the majority of articles in wikipedia (ie anything not rated good or better) is poor or worse. However, they are in wikipedia because of their potential. I would like to move away from the "delete for advertising" idea (though I would appreciate help to fix it). The issue here for me is notability, right? I will find those relevant pages, shall I? To SpikeJones: Do even 1% of the articles in newspapers make it onto the internet? We cannot rely on that for anything, really. Just independent, online reviews, which do exist, even if there aren't dozens of them. Fuzzibloke (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Fuzzibloke: you need to answer the question of what makes an article *about* this company encyclopedic? Info about the cost of tours, the number of brochures sent out, etc, or that the company has x tours planned for 2009 are all advertising related statements. If I were to go through the current article and remove all non-encyclopedic statements, you'd probably be left with 5 sentences (an exaggeration, I'm sure, but I chose "5" to make a point), and as such you would have an article that could still fail notability. What is significant about this travel company in the industry when compared to *every* other travel company? Not the tours offered, the company. There have been no counter-refs providing unbiased-3rd-party articles *about* the company (again, not articles about the tours, but articles written about the company). Unbiased does not necessarily mean critical. Aside from notability, one other concern that may be raised is whether you have a vested interest in having this article appear. As you are the article creator, what was the reasoning you have for feeling like the article should be created in the first place? SpikeJones (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you for that. Articles about the company... there is the Australian one referenced somewhere. Other than that, I now see that you have a good point. However, I fail to understand why articles about the tours do not contribute something. Surely if the tours have secondary sources, they deserve articles, but in that case, it would be easier to cover everything on this page? I will say again, you are right about the shortage of online articles that are not about individual tours, but there have almost certainly been some in nonline sources. Does that help at all? I see that I do not have your honed sense of what is encyclopedic, which renders me probably unable to rewrite this satisfactorily without support. The company is significant, in my opinion, for dominating its specialist field and winning awards. What defines unbiased in your view? If the writer was a client, does that count as biased? If only there was a way to find out more about this national geographic article that was mentioned somewhere. I have no idea whether it would be sufficient - heck, it might even be an advert - but it would be useful. Pity we won't find out any more (if there is any more) for a few weeks. And I have been fighting, above everything else, for neutrality. Why did I write this? (skip the next bit if you don't want a story) A few years ago, I fell in love with the wikipedia ideal without being old enough to have bothered to read all the guideline stuff. Martin Randall Travel was something I knew about, which I could obtain facts for easily, which did not already have an article, like the other couple of articles I wrote. Yes, they were bad. I can't remember how many I created, but only two stubs I made from dead links have survived. This one was the only one which had a nomination debate before its deletion. I was disheartened, and stopped creating articles, just dabbling in WP. Then that questionnaire came around a few weeks ago, and I realised I really must get into WP again. This article had been called "pork," so I reasoned that if I recreated it more neutrally, it should be alright. It became a sort of flagship for me. You did ask... Anyway, addressing the comment below: one of the profiles is an awards thing. I don't know what the other awards are (I could find out eventually) so I don't know how notable they are. Taken together, I think they are, but for now I don't have much to go on. If my article counts as contentless blurb, I must honestly say that I do not know how to write an encyclopedia article. Which is annoying, as MRT tour-goers and Wikipedia editors are going to be almost mutually exclusive. Well that was rather long... oops, I think I sound rather too defensive... Fuzzibloke (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I'll try to be brief:

• Regarding awards received - they need to be notable awards that are recognized in the industry.
• Regarding articles written - they need to be about the company, not about the tours. Business-related articles profiling the company or founder are good. Travel articles talking about a destination with a singular "travel can be done via Martin Randall" blurb is bad.
• Regarding WP policy - now that you're old enough, please read the guidelines and help articles that we have been pointing you to. Reading and understanding those policies will make you a better WP editor.
• Regarding "articles about the tours" - what is significantly encyclopedic/notable about the tours that would allow them to have articles about the tours... instead of articles about the destinations themselves?
• Regarding "the company is significant, in my opinion" - the issue is whether it is signiciant in others opinion. You may think you child is the cutest, most well-behaved child on the planet, but others may call it a spoiled, ugly, little brat. But if there is an outside reference that could show your child being featured as the unlikely author of a book on child etiquette, then you would have something to work with.

I'm sure others could chime in, but the essence is that WP is not a repository of all things. I know of an "award winning travel agency" down the street, but Joe-Bob's Swamp Tours would never make it as an entry because it's just not unique/notable enough on its own. Perhaps when they become known as the world's largest Swamp Tour operator, but not now. SpikeJones (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for that summary. In order: what makes a notable reward? How large must the field be? Do multiple small ones add up? Ref 5 links to a non-tour article. I have read lots of guidelines. Wikipedia is not just about helping existing articles in small ways: I believe the optimum article number is several million. Articles about the tours was just a point I was making. I put the "in my opinion" there for that reason. I was trying to demonstrate why it's my opinion. The following quote is taken from the website: "Sunday Telegraph, January 2003 ‘Now unquestionably the leading specialist in cultural tours, with an extensive programme themed on art, music, architecture, archaeology or history.’ — Tim Jepson" Of course, that isn't good enough as we do not have the entire article. However, you see my point. I know wikipedia is not a repository of all things. This company is undeniably notable. The question is: is it notable enough? But about the whole writing as an encyclopedia thing, I must say I just do not get it. Otherwise I would have written it the correct way, as I tried. Fuzzibloke (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: What makes a notable award? It helps if the award ceremony is covered in the mainstream press, for example, and not just by the people issuing the award. A Webbie award for best website is notable. A "Joe Bob Cool Link Of The Day" award is not. Multiple non-notable awards do not equate one notable one (see previous sentence). Regarding the quote "Now unquestionably the leading specialist in tours...": "now" should be replaced with an exact timeframe, "unquestionably" is hyperbole and would be removed, and "leading specialist" needs to be qualified by an external source (in other words, if there is any doubt as to the fact-base of the statements, then they must be removed). This would leave "the specialist in tours", which is not unique/notable enough of a statement to warrant having an article written. In any case, so we do not digress too far away from the original topic, I will refrain from further addressing your concerns here so the AFD discussion can continue appropriately. SpikeJones (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Without checking the article, notability in the context of companies is discussed at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I suspect that many of the articles being cited are viewed by other editors as "fluff" pieces which do not provide the sort of in-depth coverage needed to write an encyclopedia article rather than another almost contentless blurb - harsh reviews are not necessary, but critical attention of some sort is. Has the company been profiled for one of the awards mentioned above? The awards themselves may also confer WP:notability if they are prominent to the field. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to be a somewhat notable company. Using a Google News Archive search, I've found several articles that are about this company, Times Online, The Age, Travel Trade Gazette UK & Ireland, Telegraph, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Mail on Sunday. This company has also received significant coverage in a history book, titled A History of Western Architecture. Even if the AITO Travel Company of the Year Award is non-notable, Martin Randall Travel has received some coverage for this award. The significant coverage of this travel company indicates that it is notable and passes WP:COMPANY. Cunard (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The ITM Travel Gazette item is a press release; The Age article was not written from a non-biased source, but rather is from a paid tour guest of the company; I'll grant the Telegraph article is about a business item, although the SFGate version of the same story states that info from Martin Randall Travel is from a press release; the Times Online article doesn't have any red flags on its surface; the amazon book reference needs context, as the excerpts indicate content is phrased as if from a travel brochure advertising upcoming trips. SpikeJones (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Even though several of these sources are not 100% neutral, they indicate that this company is notable. The article from the Travel Trade Gazette might be a press release, but the fact that the "world's oldest travel trade newspaper" wrote an article about it asserts some notability. The Age is an Australian newspaper which is a very reliable source. The reviewer of this travel company interviewed the Martin Randall, the founder of the company, so this article is a wealth of reliable information about the history of the company. The article quotes from an employee (in this case, the founder) at the company, but isn't that what the majority of articles do? I agree with you about book probably containing excerpts from a travel brochure, but the other sources seem fine to me. Cunard (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: The article from The Age is footnoted with the disclaimer of "(author) Michael Shmith was on the Austro-Hungarian Festival cruise as the guest of Martin Randall Travel". The issue with using this as a ref is that Mr Shmith would not be a neutral, unbiased, 3rd party. Other articles that solely use/quote the press releases are equally suspect as all they are acting as is PR distribution. The earlier comment about AITO brings up the fact that the organization has 150 members -- why should an encyclopedia article exist about THIS AITO member and not any of the other 149 travel companies that are members? SpikeJones (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: That's true, but Michael Schmith a newspaper reporter who is writing for a notable newspaper. Even though the author of this review has a slightly slanted opinion of the travel company, he's still a reliable source. Why would Schmith write about this company and use this company's services out of the 149 travel companies in the AITO? The answer is that he wrote a review because he was most likely invited by the company to attend a complimentary vacation. This invitation gave the company coverage that they probably wouldn't have received. Nonetheless, this is acceptable, reliable coverage. Although Schmith now has a favorable opinion of the company, his article still qualifies as a third-party source. It's not neutral, but it's still third-party coverage. Addressing your second point: WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST isn't a good deletion argument. Articles for the other AITO companies haven't been created because they either a) haven't received enough coverage or b) editors haven't gotten around to creating pages for them. Winning the AITO award adds to this company's notability but is not the only reason for it. The other references I mentioned above are enough for this company to pass the notability requirements. Cunard (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Age does not harp on about the company; it talks about the founder. Surely, whether or not the writer was biased towards the company is irrelevant, since he does not take the opportunity to go on about how great it is, nor does he take the opportunity to go on about how great The Age is, or any other thing he might be biased towards... if you see my point. Fuzzibloke (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Thanks for notifying me, Spike. I contested an earlier speedy nom. The article is far better than its earlier deleted version, but the article could use more improvement. The sources are okay but not great. Most are either lower quality (reliability) sources or aren't focused directly on the company. I think there's enough quality in the sources to require a full discussion instead of a speedy deletion. Royalbroil 02:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, feedback is not flowing in right now. So far we have a delete nomination, a strong delete citing G11, a keep (UPDATE: two keeps), a creator's keep and two weak keeps. There is consensus that this article is flawed, and division over notability. There is a possibility that we will have no more participants until the five days are up. I will try to weed out advertising, but I have said that I may have trouble spotting it. What do you think the situation is, Spike? You and Numyht are the only ones to challenge this article's existence at this stage. Fuzzibloke (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs a good looking at but the newspaper articles linked to (and included in this discussion) amount to more independent sources than many others have. Nuttah (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2008 (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.