Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expedia, Inc.

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 --JForget 02:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expedia, Inc.[edit]

adds no new information; most information in this article is already in Expedia. They are basically the same thing; does not need a new article. If needed, a new category can be added to Expedia Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have separate articles for Google and Google search, The Coca-Cola Company and Coca-Cola, and for many other similarly named pairs of company and major product. It is difficult to write a combined article that does not confuse the two (how do you combine the infoboxes, for instance?). The article needs to be expanded, certainly, and I will keep doing so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate - as per above. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline case, but keep as it does own several properties other than Expedia itself. If it were just the owner of the website that would be different. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others. Two different things. If anything, Expedia should be merged into the other article, not vice versa. Rray (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Parent is notable separate and apart from the service it offers. Alansohn (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Keep now that the article has been expanded upon and is no longer just one or two sentences. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article asserts notability outside the scope of Expedia proper. Still needs some TLC, but that's no reason to delete. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with all above Doc Strange (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:00, 8 January 2008 (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.