Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CheapOair


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

CheapOair

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable travel company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is routine notices, WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions.

Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. For AfDs related to the same company, please see Articles for deletion/Fareportal and OneTravel (2nd nomination). Issues with this page are comparable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 04:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 04:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 04:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The refs are strong. The parent company fareportal was deleted 7 years ago but based upon those mixed in here would likely be OK for inclusion now, the sister company onetravel was recently deleted for looking like an advert. Anyway keep from me. Szzuk (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion on Fareportal happened this month (March 2018), not 7 years ago: Articles for deletion/Fareportal. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, I was looking at the first afd for onetravel, too many pages open. Szzuk (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes  04:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's two cited sources that unimpeachably meet WP:RS: (a) The Fortune article "Sam Jain's CheapOair is really taking off" and (b) the Bloomberg Businessweek article "This Travel-Booking Website Loves It When You Call". There's also a Barron's article that is at least half about the company's business model: "How To Cancel Your Flight: These Details Matter" . A number of these magazines cite the company as #5 in the industry and these are the types of magazines that fact-check their work. #10 in the US fare-booking industry probably doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article but #5 likely does.  Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Fortune piece is an article written by the founder to promote his business: "Sam Jain's CheapOair is really taking off", "His story:..." The editorial intro is 1 paragraph. The Bloomberg BusinessWeek opens with "You know the four largest online travel agents: Priceline, Expedia, Orbitz, and Travelocity. The fifth? It’s a privately held website with an old-school strategy: live human travel agents available via phone or Web chat. You’ve never heard of it?" (emphasis mine). "Never heard" suggests to me a marginally notable business, promotional articles on which we should not accept. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry but that's not a fair portrayal of the notability significance of the two pieces. The How I Got Started column was and is a regular column in Fortune written by Dinah Eng. Fortune is a reliable source - one that we can be reasonably confident that does its fact-checking, even before printing an article written in the first-person singular; and that you can't buy your way into. As you point out, only the first paragraph is independent but that's more than a passing mention - it's a short but complete description of the business and its market standing.  As for the Bloomberg BusinessWeek article, the same applies - Bloomberg Businessweek is a major business publication that we can be fairly sure is reliable and independent. I don't think that anyone can seriously suggest that you can buy a promotional article in Bloomberg BusinessWeek any more easily than in the New York Times. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. The sole independent high-quality source is Bloomberg. The rest are interviews, PR releases, and low quality sources. Amenable to change my !vote on better sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. I disagree that the Bloomberg is a solid source too since it extensively relies on quotations from company executives - essentially the article makes a statement to "set up" the quotation - this is not a good sign of intellectually independent content. References fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 17:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've largely rewritten the article over the last week or so. Please take a fresh look.  I've added one further cite, to Forbes (magazine) that is partly about FarePortal and partly about CheapOair. Fiachra10003 (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.