Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek Island Hopping

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 Move To Draft. Do not recreate unlessits well sourced. Spartaz Humbug! 10:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Island Hopping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE !dave 23:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a travel guide is the reason to delete the article. I will clarify further in my reason above. Atsme📞📧 13:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a real thing similar to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blue_Cruise - I don't really think it meets Not Travel - it doesn't have any phone numbers, hotels, restaurant information, etc. But it's completely unreferenced and most of the sources I've found by searching quickly are not going to establish notability. Reluctant to vote delete as the sources likely do exist, likewise reluctant to vote keep based on sources I haven't seen Seraphim System (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if not copyvio. Draftify not advertising,the term seems used in a variety or sources , and if it's copyvio we haven't found it. As a type of tour, this seems to be the common came--searching Google for "greek island tour" shows that more than half the hits use the term. The style is `nec. but fixable. What's needed is further check for copyvio DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: Checked for copyvio via Earwig. Came back negative. !dave 10:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that may not be enough in this case, because of the way it reads. Tere are two many possibilties for printed sources. If we keep it, the safest thing to do is to rewrite it a little to rephrase the parts that are most different from our usual style . So I'm saying Draftify. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point and I know what you mean. Upon first sight of this article my 'spidey sense' thought copyvio, and I was surprised when earwig came back negative. !dave 17:26, 6 February 2018 (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.