Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JETGO Australia


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

JETGO Australia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject recieves no coverage in media. A google news search brings up nothing. It's a small airline that owns 3 small planes, so that fact is hardly suprising. As the article is not notable or covered by reliable sources it should be deleted.  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  09:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - "Subject receives no coverage in media" when I see at least 3 reliable mainstream media sources that have significance coverage of the airline, within the article. Really don't see why this was nominated for deletion. &mdash;Dark 14:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Serious? Mainstream media sources? I'll give you News.com, but its a bit of a stretch to call the other two "mainstream".  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  14:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps mainstream was the wrong word. But it's pretty clear that they would be considered independent reliable sources; as such they would pass the notability requirement set by WP:CORP &mdash;Dark 15:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Coverage in Flightglobal here.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep there is "significant coverage independant of the subject", not only the Courier Mail, but Australian Aviation (which is Australia's foremost aviation industry magazine - I would class other aviation magazines in this country as primarily written for enthusiasts or people learning to fly), which has also had a two-page article about the subject in the middle of last year. There are articles in several other Queensland newspapers, including from Mackay and Rockhampton (both fairly large regional centres). Coverage will increase with time, but as I said there is already significant coverage now. YSSYguy (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - The shoddy excuse for deletion was invalid several days if not weeks before this AfD was started. Per WP:AGF I will not judge this as anything other than a mistake. PantherLeapord (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Firstly I must declare that I work for JETGO, but nevertheless feel it may be helpful if I respond. I was not aware that popularity is criteria of Wikipedia. The comments made regarding the amount of media coverage we receive are interesting, but fail to understand that jet charter by nature, and its clients particularly value; exclusivity, confidentiality and privacy.  As a result JETGO does not give media interviews or issue media releases.  I will go as far as to say we try our best to avoid the media.
 * Yes we are a small charter airline with 3 Embraer Regional Jets in service, and a fourth undergoing pre-delivery in the USA.
 * Is the company significant??? I will leave that to others to judge; however JETGO is the only operator in Australia of true regional jets (in the sub 70 seat market), it gained a jet AOC (for both domestic & international operations) in a remarkably short time frame last year.  When I joined the company 9 months ago we had just one jet, today we have 3 and a 4th scheduled by September. And the company is profitable. In the last year we operated commercial flights into 42 towns & cities around Australia and Asia. A remarkable achievement by Jason Ryder & Arron Mulder (and the rest of the small team).
 * If I was asked about deleting the JETGO Wikipedia article 6 months ago I would have fully supported the notion. But considering that Wikipedia is such an important reference tool for so many, particularly those interested in aviation, the fact there is a page is something I now have no issue with, providing the content is accurate.
 * Over the next 18 months JETGO is likely to add another 5 jets and will expand into some RPT operations, you will also see our aircraft in more places including charter services as far away as London, so I expect there will be more media coverage about us.PaulBredereck (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Just because the company operates a relatively small fleet is not grounds to delete the article. WP:CORP notability guidelines state "Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products". As the original creator of the article, this company was brought to my attention through media coverage in The Courier Mail via news.com.au, so I do not accept the argument that the media coverage is only local and trivial in scope. Australian-based aviation companies with similar fleet sizes and less cited sources are well represented on Wikipedia, many as stub articles which remain unchallenged. Given JETGO is distinct from other small charter operators in the Australian resources sector FIFO market by way of its business model operating sub 50 seat pure jet aircraft, a fact which has been documented in Australian Aviation and Flight Global as well as current expansion I believe deletion of this article would be inappropriate. Dfadden (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self promotional piece falling short of WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is just listings, local interest coverage and one from "media of limited interest and circulation". Not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2013 (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.