Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khaki Tours

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. The sole pro-Keep comment is not persuasive whereas the two favoring deletion are. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khaki Tours

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

Notability not established. Of the the two articles, one only mentions the subject in passing, and the other seems very tourism focused. Also, the creator of the post seems to have a COI. Theredproject (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please include this notice in Tourism-related deletion discussions.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a couple more references, while also finding lots of newspapers with brief mentions about the group. All of them largely focus on the city and the variety of tours they offer than the organization's structure. MT Train^Talk 08:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Whatever the nom means by "notability not established," it's clear from the first two sources cited in the article that this company passes the GNG. Those are [1] and [2] in case future editing changes the order. Also, if editors of the article have COIs, there are other means of dealing with them. That is absolutely not a reason for deletion. Finally, as far as I know there's no policy against using sources just because they're "very tourism focused." If I'm wrong, let me know, but I don't see how one could reasonably expect sources on tour companies not to be "tourism focused" to some extent. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--nowhere close to passing GNG i.e. garnering non-trivial coverage in multiple RS.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The brief notice items describing particular tour events are no more than the typical coverage obtained by any start-up in that business domain. Nor does the passing mention of the company as one among several organisations involved in a piece of heritage restoration amount to significant coverage. Nothing indicates this to be more than a run-of-the-mill company going about its business: fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2018 (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.