Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Eagle Entertainment


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 18:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Global Eagle Entertainment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability per relevant standard (WP:ORG). Could not find significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources. A Google News search suggests that GEE is engaging in an aggressive digital marketing push to drive up its stock price. Several WP:SPAs have been adding promotional content to this article at the same time. -- Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Only sources I could find were the mentioned news articles about its recent marketing plans, nothing noteworthy to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG requirements. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - no indication this meets WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete - in light of page edits - Pete Nice 01:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We are in the process of updating our Wikipedia page including newsworthy info and citations.
 * Here is an example of newsworthiness: http://www.satellitetoday.com/telecom/2016/05/09/global-eagle-makes-550-acquisition-of-emc/
 * Here is an example of our Entice platform and connectivity. https://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/2016/06/10/global-eagle-focuses-on-content-over-connectivity-in-maritime-play/
 * We wish to keep the page open as we will update everything in the coming weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideagal1 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're editing on behalf of Global Eagle Entertainment please ensure that you've read over the Conflict of interest. While COI editing isn't banned, it's strongly discouraged. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Moreover, if you're being paid for that editing, then the Wikipedia terms of use require you to disclose who's paying you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Please review recent edits to this page in consideration of removing mark for deletion. Updates as follows: 1. Article content edited to reflect neutral tone. 2. Additional citations added 3. Citations to sources at greater distance from subject. These edits were done by Pete Nice on behalf of Global Eagle Entertainment 01:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The coverage I managed to locate stems far from significant coverage, which is a required criterion that must be met in order for WP:GNG to be established. Coverage in secondary reliable sources that are independent from the subject is very lacking. Also doesn't meet WP:ORG. Aside from the notability concerns, the article is clearly being created and expanded by editors with a conflict of interest.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not happy about how this page came to be. And it's all basically in violation of our ToS (Terms of Service). But the creator has come around quickly enough to confessing his involvement with the company. His not doing so is more or less an error rather than deliberate undermining... I think. Although his editing history is odd -- a few edits, then ten years (!) of silence, then revival -- and would be consistent with a sleeper account, my gut feeling is that it's not a sleeper account. And while promotional, its not a puff piece.


 * OK looking at refs. There's no coverage in a notable general-purpose newspaper or magazine. There is in-depth coverage in specialist outlets... something called Satellite Today, something called Runway Girl Network. This seems all, and it's just about acquisition stuff. It maybe meets the [[WP:GNG] requirement for multiple (two) instances of in-depth coverage, if you squint hard enough to see Satellite Today and Runway Girl as being notable enough to qualify, rather than just overly specialized organs of limited general interest. Or maybe even press-release type organs, who knows. (The other refs in the article are no good for establishing notability I don't think.)


 * So its on the border. But its work done for hire. And we don't want to encourage work done for hire. And since the encyclopedic value is just borderline, overall its a net negative for the Wikipedia to keep it. So delete. Herostratus (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding Author Validity - I understand why active wiki editors would find my edit history odd. I did not originate this page, I'm merely trying to improve it and guide the content to a better place on behalf of a client. I admit that I'm a novice and am eager to learn more. I would not characterize my current position as a "confession", merely an oversight. I'll do a more thorough read of the guidelines as I continue to engage.


 * Regarding Conflict of Interest - Wouldn't that discussion be more appropriate in light of the actual content on the page? I find it difficult to understand how the current state of the page would benefit me personally. I do see how an improved page, factual, well sourced, could improve the state of the resource, but would it affect me personally? I am not an employee of GEE, nor do I own stock in the company.


 * Regarding Encyclopedic Value - This plan is to continue to improve this page with unbiased well-sourced material. Please see most recent edit. If page is deleted, we lose the chance to move the page and the resource forward, beyond "borderline".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petenice666 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , could you please explain what affiliation you or your employer has with Global Eagle or its subsidiaries or other related entities, if any? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. The Satellite Today and Runway Girl Network articles are highly questionable, and I doubt anyone here can carry the WP:BURDEN of proving their reliability. As far as I can tell neither has a reputation for fact checking or accuracy. Both authors are young with no traditional journalism credentials. Both outlets are industry insider sites and I see no evidence that their supervisory staffs have editorial or other fact-checking credentials. Based on how these sources read I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were commissioned by GEE as part of their recent digital marketing blitz. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Updated Source - please see most recent edit with source to Wall Street Journal. More improvements are on the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petenice666 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 July 2016 (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.