Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jet Asia


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 04:13Z 

Jet Asia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Violates several Wikipedia policies. Anyone have any valid reason this article should be kept, or knows of reliable sources which prove notability? cab 11:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:COI and WP:OWN: User:202.175.101.188 identifies himself as the IT manager of Jet Asia or as Chuck Woods, the CEO, and whenever anyone edits the page, he reverts the edit and gives them this warning you dont have any mandate from us to edit or posted on internet even if its missin formation. (See ) I put a prod tag also on the article, and he also reverted it and accused me of giving false information. I suspect he will also try to remove the AfD tag.
 * WP:NOT a business directory
 * Notability, the primary failure, which I pointed out in my prod summary: "~500 GHits, and the only instance of non-trivial press coverage I can find reads like an advertorial (so I suspect it of failing the "independence" criterion of WP:RS)"


 * Delete per nomination, if we can get their mandate to do so ;) -- TexMurphy 12:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete thinly disguised advertisement with no assertion of notability. If you want to exercise mandate over a description of your company, keep the page on your own website. Flyingtoaster1337 14:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Even the revision before all the COI edits does not assert much notability. Flyingtoaster1337 14:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete per nomination Cornell Rockey 16:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 18:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonnotable company apart from the COI and "ownership" issues. NawlinWiki 19:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and may I suggest a light sprinkling of salt on this, given the nature of the creator's editing? SkierRMH 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Salt might not be necessary yet; the creator was User:Instantnood, not the anon above; Instantnood was making a bunch of HK transport-related edits around that time back in May 2005, seems like good-faith creation to me. cab 04:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a seriously alarming conflict of interest, in addition to seeming to lack notability. No need to salt until re-creation actually occurs. --N Shar 00:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Update Anon is doing it again, even after I left him a uw-own1 and a link to WP:COI. User:Eastmain made an effort to source the article, and found one mention in a newspaper from 2001; however, the anon removed it, and left me a  message. Basically, his argument is that the published sources about his company are wrong; of course, if no one independent author has bothered to publish anything correct about his company in the last 6 years, that's an even stronger argument for deletion. Zero information is preferable to misleading or false information, as WP:V puts it. cab 11:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * basically i think you didnt read carefull what i said ok? independent sources doesnt means any information on net, not everything on web is true or Updated information, to post information on encyclopedia the facts need to be checked as in real life not copy and paste . understand  CaliforniaAliBaba ? the basic fundamentals of digital Information its 1 and 0, true or false  and all information needes to be checked because not every information is true there always noise, if you dont understand advise you to study the theiry of infomation then u might know waht is all about .dont use the copy paste thinking. best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.101.188 (talk • contribs) 2007 Feb 10 04:50 UTC
 * Do you understand what is an independent source? Let me define it for you: it is someone who is not working for Jet Asia (e.g. not you the IT manager, and not Chuck Woods the CEO). As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, the independent sources are required by Wikipedia policy for us to verify that your company meets the inclusion guidelines for corporations; editors also use independent sources to check the truth or falsehood of information which corporations write about themselves. You continue to complain that the information about in your company's article is false, and that the information in the newspaper articles we have been able to find about your company is also false; well I ask you again, now for the third time, can you point us to true and independent information about your company, whether on the internet, in newspapers, in books, or wherever?
 * Or does such information not exist? If not, then there should not be a Wikipedia article about your company; to continue to keep it here would be in contravention of our policy on verifiability. This is non-negotiable. If you would like to spread truthful information about your company, I would suggest you do so by updating your own website. Or, you may suggest to your public relations department that they contact journalists to inform them of your company's accomplishments and see if they are interested in writing about your company. Per policy, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance for new information; it is a tertiary source, which means it relies on information which has already been fact-checked by other reliable secondary sources. cab 07:22, 10 February 2007 (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.