Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travel Radar

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. – bradv^🍁 01:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Radar

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article for a non-notable magazine that heavily relies on primary sources, mentions of citations in news articles, and basic references that don't verify notability. Fails WP:NMAG. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep I oppose the deletion of this stub. Whilst I do not believe qualifiable for a page I think as per Wikipedia:NMAG a stub is suitable. "This suggested guideline covers the kinds of periodicals that are formally published, that is they (usually after 1974) have an ISSN code, are circulated in libraries or other reference sources, and (usually or often) appear in paper." -- publication meets this ISSN criteria.

The citations clearly show a referenced ISSN - not an easy process for publishers to go through - media interest (quoted/primary source for a Business Insider Journalist and an interview with Founder) and event coverage provided provided the organisation - including by Inmarsat

Very similar to other magazines of similar notability Airways Magazine and ch-aviation which have passed review with maintenance message for additional citation addition.

Suggestion: Oppose deletion and keep stub with maintenance message. Further citations from Editors encouraged to enhance notability but does not qualify for upright deletion due to meeting basic criteria

A quick citation search using buttons above brings back a Google Search Knowledge-Graph and listing as a publisher on Google News. Two accreditations showing search worthiness. A Google Trend search also shows the entity is highly searched.

LukeWWF (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer LukeWWF was the creator of this article. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article or references makes this noteworthy for a stand-alone article among many such similar online sites. MilborneOne (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:MilborneOne, don't you think the references qualify it for stub status? See Wikipedia:Stub: "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject."

'Many such similar online magazines' include Airways Magazine, ch-aviation and Aviation Week & Space Technology all which qualify for inclusion. I don't think Travel Radar is any different -- if anything the references of notability is stronger.

LukeWWF (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeWWF: Stub articles should follow all guidelines that non-stubs do. Stubs aren't for small, non-notable topics, they're just a class of article that are written short. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WaddlesJP13: Yes I am aware of the requirements for notability and as per the citations and precedent set by other stubs on Wiki, I think the article is more than sufficient to stay. My point was the article is not as long as a full length article but what is there meets notbaility and general Wiki requirements in my opinion.

As mentioned please view similar stubs Airways Magazine, ch-aviation and Aviation Week & Space Technology which set this precedent. Hopefully you can see why my opposition.

LukeWWF (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeWWF: Those articles have many similar problems and could also be facing deletion soon, as seen by their notability, COI, and primary source tags at the top. If many articles similarly violate the same guidelines that doesn't give this one an exception. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WaddlesJP13: Thanks for your reply and thoughts Waddles. I was suggesting an alternative resolution to deletion - in that the article remains but with the tags staying and editors encouraged to improve the piece: More experienced editors will be able to better citate I am sure.

In the case of my examples, they faced a similar problem (AfD), but the tags was the chosen resolution and they've been like that since pre-2014; So quite a while! An Administrator has also worked to improve one of them which also sets a good example of an alternative. Just trying to think of alternatives as basic notability is there, and I believe strongly it meets criteria for inclusion.

Would you be willing to consider this as an alternative resolution than a harsh delete?

LukeWWF (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this page we have to keep it as this page is impacting socially to explore and discover new ways to improve our society in terms of travel, activities, experiences & marketing.

KilianPerez99 (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC) — KilianPerez99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@KilianPerez99: That's not a valid reason to keep an article. Can you explain how is it "impacting socially to explore and discover new ways to improve our society in terms of travel, activities, experiences & marketing"? That sounds a bit promotional. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tinerfe Keep - By archive purpose as published an registered publication must to be keep in the file in order to user to find it and find references about it. --Tinerfe (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC) — Tinerfe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Whether this is a registered publication, or has an ISSN, or whatever, is not relevant. What is relevant is whether this meets WP:GNG. As far as I can see, it does not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Travel Radar only has mentions outside of 2 primary sources. Taken as a collective, the sources fail WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom and @Heartmusic678 The article lacks any WP:SIGCOV, let alone sustained independent WP:SIGCOV, so it's a complete failure of WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newshunter12 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 September 2021 (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.