Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cayole

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. While at least two of the external references were from entities of substance, I believe the actual pieces qualify as trivial under the Internet notability guidelines. "A brief summary of the nature of the content" doesn't really qualify as substantial coverage. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 05:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cayole

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

Cruise reservation website launched last year, little third-party coverage. Speedy deletion challenged by the creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The website is reasonably new, thus it doesn't have hundreds of articles discussing it. However, in my opinion it is notable because it shows historical cruise prices and future price predictions for cruises, something that no other website does. For this feature, the website was mentioned in articles in Newsweek, New York Times and Tnooz. The Newsweek and Tnooz articles were fully devoted to Cayole, while the New York Times article mentioned in extensively. It is my understanding that these articles constitute a non-trivial coverage by third-party credible sources and as such the article should not be deleted. Here is the link offered by Mike Rosoft defining trivial coverage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEB

In my judgement, none of the 3 sources fit the trivial coverage criteria mentioned above. --Greekguyinboston (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC) — Greekguyinboston (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You're flat-out admitting that the sources don't meet Wikipedia guidelines? I was going to !vote delete anyway due to the lack of coverage, but what you just said seals it. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erpert - please read carefully what I wrote. An admin said that sources are "trivial". I just linked to the guidelines showing that none of the sources are TRIVIAL i.e. all sources are non-trivial. And I believe New York Times, Newsweek and Tnooz are all solid sources.--Greekguyinboston (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Newsweek and New York Times links are just fleeting mentions of the site; a subject has to have in-depth coverage in order to be notable. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erpert - I'm curious as to where did you find that need for "in-depth" coverage? The link that you mentioned yourself says "significant" coverage. Moreover, according to your own link "[Significant coverage] means that sources address the subject directly in detail ... but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Just for your information - in Newsweek the whole article was dedicated to Cayole.com, while New York times discussed it in 2 full paragraphs (which is not a little by NYT standards). Moreover, Tnooz article was also fully dedicated to Cayole.com.--Greekguyinboston (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest possible keep ever I very reluctantly give this keep !vote. Although the website does technically meet WP:GNG and WP:WEB, it really isnt that unique or notable in my honest opinion. I would say that it meets the letter but not the intent of these guidelines and I am tempted to invoke WP:IAR. To closing admin, please give this the least weight possible.--v/r - T P 02:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage from Reliable Sources. The so-called Newsweek article is actually an item from a Budget Travel blog. [1] The NYT mentions the site in passing. There is an interview at TNooz, but I have no indication that TNooz is a reliable or independent site as Wikipedia defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2011 (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.