Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITraveller

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ITraveller

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

advertising The Banner talk 13:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete for now - My searches actually found coverage here and here but it could be better so draft/userfy for now is a good option. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't seem to find any notability now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. iTraveller.com is one of the hottest companies in the Indian startup scene. Although users from around the world or those who aren't familiar with the startup scene may not have knowledge of this, the multitude of media mentions that iTraveller.com has is reason enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksandip (talk • contribs) 17:33, 22 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that this article is a blatant advertisement. The Banner talk 22:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 08:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say delete. I looked at some of the sources SwisterTwister found, and they don't seem very impressive. At the most, userfy it. But there does not appear to be anything right now to justify this article. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 06:04, 9 August 2015 (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.