Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jetabroad (2nd nomination)

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. Given the history, I'm tempted to salt this, but will restrain myself. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jetabroad

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

Another vanity article, no indication of notability. Ireneshih (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks like an advert lacking coverage outside travel media. LibStar (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:CORP.--Rpclod (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jetabroad is mentioned in the list of top-25 travel websites, meaning that it is used widely. As such, the subject-matter passes WP:N. The Sydney Morning Herald speaks of Jetabroad as being among the "best comparison sites", thus satisfying WP:RS. The articles about analogous travel websites, such as Travelocity and Orbitz have a similar (if not lesser) amount of references as this one, yet they stand. In light of these facts, I support their retention. I hope that this comment is helpful. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:52, 21 July 2014 (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.