Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studatour

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. Missvain (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Studatour[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Out of the current five sources in the article, three were written by the company's CEO, one appears to be a press release, and one is a 'company profile'. None of this meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm cognizant that reliable sources for African subjects can be difficult to come by, so I looked carefully for anything that could support this article meeting WP:NCORP, but I didn't find anything better. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A listing-type article describing a company's wares. The sources are a mix of promotional postings and a first-person-voice description of a tour trip, so falling under primary sources. The firm is mentioned in a brief profile piece about the founder and his wider career (Inter-News Network, December 2018) but that too falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH as a source. A firm which has provided small-group tours over the past decade, but falls short of demonstrable notability. AllyD (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A non-notable agency that lacks coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 10:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Voicing rationale put forward by Versace1608 as without coverage in reliable sources this collaborative project is doomed. Celestina007 (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2020 (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.