Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Explorer

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 Keep. -- Longhair\^talk 23:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Explorer

Here's an interesting one. The creator wants this article he created deleted, believing it's spam. He even went so far as to slash out the refrences before trying to have it deleted and tagging it as G4. However, others have worked on the article (even undeleting it once) and wish to save it. Therefore, I'm bringing it here to help sort it out. This is procedural for me, but I'm leaning towards keep. (and by the way, WP:CSD#G7 doesn't apply, since the creator is not the only contributor) UsaSatsui 13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't really sound like spam, it actually sounds fairly concise. The two articles in the NY Times and one in the Miami Herald appear to give it plenty of reliable sources and notability. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I question the notability of the subject, and it does have a couple of spammy sentences. Or cut out two sentences and add context and sources to cement notability. --Evb-wiki 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or I have another option I wrote this article to help promote the service and ticket sales and to impress my boss, it has made a slight difference to ticket sales. Every now and then I will ask a European tourist how they found out about this service and roughly one in every 20 or so people say they read about this on Wikipedia. The thing is, now that I am more aware of how wikipedia works and their policy on advertising and stuff like that, I now believe that this article should not be here. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 14:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting I have another proposal. The Sydney explorer bus has a direct competitor that is having an affect on their business. I know this becuase I sell the tickets for the other bus as well, Its called the Sydney City Sightseeing tour bus, or something like that. What I will do in future if this article is not deleted is move the Sydney Explorer to a different article name under a more neutral name and combine it with the other tour bus. I believe this would make it neutral and not so much and advert for the one service. I also have pictures of both buses and some of the places that they stop at, to add later on. Both buses work the same way, they have so many stops around Sydney, they both have a Sydney and a Bondi Tour and they follow the same route almost. So I think the article could be renamed to Sydney sightseeing tours or Sydney tours or something that doesn't sound like advertising. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 14:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I know you feel you made this article with bad intentions, and think it should be deleted because of that. However, one of the things that happens around here is tht "bad" articles can get turned into good ones. It's one of the strengths of the system, something can be re-written by many others until it becomes better. I think it's kind of the idea. Your admitting your conflict of interest is a good thing, but why not just accept the fact that something beneficial for your business came out of it, and not feel guilty? Wikipedia isn't for advertising, but if people learn about your business through a legitimate encyclopedia article based upon notability, there's nothing wrong with that. --UsaSatsui 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not support your option. The question for both bus companies is one of notability. When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view and adding context, e.g., historical relevance or community recognition. If the Sydney City Sightseeing can meet WP:NOTE, it deserves its own article. Also, please see Wikipedia's guideline concerning conflicts of interest. Thanks. --Evb-wiki 14:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to review WP:OWN. -- Jreferee t/c 14:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was the admin who restored the PROD deleted article based on a reasonable requests. As is my practice, I do a search on the topic to see whether it meets WP:N to see whether I should list the just-restored article to AfD. My search turned up a significant amount of reliable source material, certainly enough for the topic to meet WP:N. I then added only two of the many references to the further reading section because they made reference to Sydney Explorer in the name of the news article and had significant information about Sydney Explorer in the article. This topic clearly meets WP:N. Damaging the article, threats to damage the article, and stories about the motivation behind contributions to the article are not a basis to delete the article. -- Jreferee t/c 14:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Euryalus 20:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a number of sources referring to this service from third party sources as this Google News Archive search shows. [1] Capitalistroadster 02:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalroadster, a bit of a cleanup would do. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 13:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's in need of a rewrite but the subject is notable. Disclosure: I've been on it, but almost anyone who's been to Sydney has, it's more than just a tourist service, it's sort of a semi-statutory icon. An encyclopaedic article can be written about it but would cover the positives and negatives. Orderinchaos 11:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not very strong, but the concept is a very important component of Sydney inbound tourism. Improve, but definitely retain. WWGB 12:33, 14 October 2007 (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.