- Delete. More of an advertisment than an article. More inclined to keep than the article above, but well worth discussing. -- DanielC 08:21, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
- I don't see anything about this article that blatantly violates the Wikitravel:Deletion policy, and the author is trying to comply with policies. I really think this discussion should first be moved to the article's talk page before the article is listed for deletion - unless something clearly violates policy it should really be a final step for it to be listed here. -- Ryan 08:50, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
- Keep, but needs DRASTIC editing. The given itinerary just "happens" to match a product being advertised by the poster, what a coincidence (notice the "with our compliments" language). However, the concept of an itinerary for getting around the North Island is as sound as any other itinerary. Make it into something based on the island itself, not an infomercial, and the traveler's interests will be served. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:55, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
- Ryan and I both explained our concerns regarding policy and not being a tout to the user and he seems to be doing his best to be a productive user and with a little bit of work both articles can be excellent itineraries and less like a billboard. Keep -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 10:14, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
- Keep. And edit. -- Colin 14:23, 31 August 2006 (EDT)
- Keep. -- Tom Holland (xltel) 23:24, 2 September 2006 (EDT)
- Keep, edit and make it much less specific to the tout's tours. This is potentially a very good itinerary Tim 07:11, 3 September 2006 (EDT)
- Edit. This reads exactly like the itinerary of a professional tour organiser, and just so coincidentally, there is a link to a professional tour organiser at the end! Even if the itinerary is sound, it is written like a professional one and needs editing to make it seem more neutral, but the fact that it is followed immediately by the coach operator's site makes it very blatant advertising.
- I am that "professional tour organiser" you refer to - So some of you only want content from people outside the travel industry? That's silly. I know more about travel in NZ than most people, and the itinerary I added (plus the other 2) were there to help people with ideas. I added a link to my site at the end for those that did find it interesting to read further. Yes, its possible I will make money if they book with me, but it's not blatent advertising, (i.e no sales message). They dont have to click on the link if they did I assume they wanted too! Wiki won't get anything else like this without poeple like me. The 'anti corporate' mentality from some of the above is not in the 'public's' wiki interests. Tut tut.
Finally there are several links to other sites that directly compete with my company on the main NZ travel page (e.g Intercity Group, Naked Bus...), I cant see any difference. I must be blinded by corporate greed :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Relaxingjourneys (talk • contribs)
- No worries, while there is sometimes a bias among contributors towards traveler-contributed edits, it's clear Wikitravel policy to welcome business owners; we love to have them contribute (especially when they first take a second to peruse our policies, to make sure their contributions are in line with how things are done here). But please see Wikitravel:External links and our tours policy (the latter of which was written, I believe, after you contributed this piece). Also, you have a ton of external links on your userpage—I'd strongly encourage you to pare that list down to something like 5. Huge lists of external links hurts Wikitravel's search engine ranking, and in the time since you created your user page, we've decided to summarily delete userpages that have big external link collections. Lastly, please note that you can sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~). --Peter Talk 18:50, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
"Escorted Coach Tour Operators" section
Any objections to the deletion of this section? ~ 18.104.22.168 17:38, 8 January 2008 (EST)
No useful information has been added to this "article" for more than 3 years (as I write) and both the content and article title offend against our current policy
Either our policy should be changed or a rationale advanced that this article should be an exception. --singaporeAlice 17:57, 29 November 2012 (EST)