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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rustic Pathways

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional article on non notable program. Not important enough to be worth rewriting. The references are not primarily about he company, but rather about exotic or alternative vacations, or youth programs, and mention the company among many others. Does not meet WP:GNG without stretching the definitions of RSs for Notability very far . DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tagged it for notability etc. in the vain hope of seeing some good evidence of notability emerging. It didn't. The scheme compares itself to Outward Bound - be assured, it doesn't compare. This is just another commercial outfit providing holidays for rich kids under the umbrella of "gap year" and there is no evidence of any notability. Pure advertising. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The comment immediately above is extremely biased in tone, comparing an international student travel program as a "scheme" for "rich kids" and trivializing Gap Year travel, which is a significant and well established trend. The notability of Gap Year travel and notable programs such as Rustic Pathways and Where There Be Dragons (where Malia Obama will be spending next year), as well as programs such as Outward Bound and EF Education Tours which have approved Wikipedia pages, reflects an emerging trend in service-travel and travel-based education programs recognized by mainstream media and impacting and influencing university education and secondary education. Coverage from diverse publications from the Fiji Times to the East Bay Times to The New York Times establishes sufficient notability for Wikipedia acceptance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzakai (talk • contribs) 10:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Benzakai. It it rather unfair to consider the article for this travel company not worthy of a rewrite. Who their clientele is, and whom their business is geared towards is irrelevant. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 10:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noticeably advert-like followed by unconvincing information and sources, none of which lend anything significant. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Rustic Pathways offers more than 100 programs across 21 countries..."; Leadership; Philanthropy -- these are all hallmarks of a promotional article, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. This content belongs on the company web site, not in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources do not cover it in detail, they're just roundups of travel companies. I also find the page creator's failure to respond to a suggestion that he may need to file a disclosure statement suggestive. Blythwood (talk) 13:05, 26 February 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.