Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jet Delivery


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Jet Delivery

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Queried speedy delete. Its author claims notability. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, my reference to Inc.com’s 5000 fastest growing businesses was not an attempt to make Wikipedia a directory of fast growing businesses; it was an attempt to show that a valued source in the business community (inc.com) has included Jet Delivery in a category which makes up less that half of 1% of every privately held company in the United States. Thanks for your help. Oh yeah, what looked like spam in the article? Was it the language, pictures, or the link to the website? I can remove the website link if that will help. Or even rewrite sections that contain spam-like language. Bbarbata (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the article contains no independent sources. 5:15 23:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am the article’s original author and I would just like to say a few things. I don’t believe that this article promotes any entity (namely, Jet Delivery) anymore than the quantum filed theory article promotes quantum field theory. Or more specific to the industry in question, any more than the UPS, FedEx and DHL articles promote those companies. That is, the article was written objectively, and from an unbiased frame-of-reference. I know the reference section needs some updating (I’m working on it, but also hoping that other people can help me since there's a ton of information on Jet Delivery out there). Even though everything in this article has not "yet" been verified, everything in this article is verifiable (which is one of the distinction Wikipedia.org brings out here: . It says, "...it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be.") Anyway, I hope the community can see the value of having an encyclopedia article on Jet Delivery because the company is over 50yrs old and has been growing rapidly in the past few years. There is absolutely nothing temporary about this company and they’ve been leading same-day shipping industry since the early 80s (in front of FedEx, UPS and DHL). If anyone has any ideas on how this page can be improved, please let me know. Or feel free to just change it! Bbarbata (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets 5 pillars. Unbiased and articulates the differences between the 50’s and modern day business. Jbarbata (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the way forward for you is first to declare your relationship with the company (I assume you are related to CEO Michael Barbata). Then you need to provide reliable secondary sources to show that the company is notable. Kevin (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kevin thank you for your constructive assistance. You are correct with you assumption that I am related to the CEO and my brother is actually the writer of the wikipedia article. I do understand the notability concern. I have forwarded bbarbata some independent secondary references to post, in hopes that it will help to community see some notability. Jbarbata (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. Notability not only not established by the article but, both Google and Google News shows notability can't be readily established. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So I’ve been working on the third-party references, and according to wikipedia’s definition of notability (Notability) it seems to me that there’s significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which should merit notability. Wikipedia claims "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. It seems like the criteria has now been met. Would you mind reevaluating the article? If something is still wrong, please let me know and, if possible, I’ll fix it. Thanks. Bbarbata (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the references added, and I feel that they still fall short of proving notability. Only the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (at highbeam.com) is more than a trivial mention or press release. If there is another similar source then it can be a argued that there are multiple independant sources. As to some of the other comments here, once you get below the history section it does start to read more like promotional material. The only way around that is to reference more, i.e. if someone has written about SmartFlight then you could paraphrase that. Kevin (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kevin. I'll work on that. I really appreciate you trying to help and thanks for the examples. Bbarbata (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. Zero evidence of notability from reliable and independent tertiary or secondary sources. Wikipedia can not be its own source; neither are the owners' web sites independent.  We are not a directory of all 4,500 fastest growing companies in the United States. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links to Notability and reliable sources. I will admit, you were right and the previous references looked pretty sorry. Let me know what you think of the new references, and if they are up to par.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. Also not notable. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I’m interested in what looks like spam to you. I’ve read through the Spam page, and the only thing that seems to fall into the spam category is the link to the website. It’s not a problem if that needs to be removed. Everything else, though, seems like it should be fine to me – it’s not promoting any products, services or anything that has to do with public relations. Thanks for the help. Bbarbata (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering that someone sharing your same last name (probably a family member, or maybe it's you) runs this company, according to the company web site, you shouldn't have anything at all to do with this article because it violates Wikipedia's policies against conflict of interest. To me, this is clear evidence that this is promotional material, nothing more. As such, it really should be deleted immediately, this AFD notwithstanding. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Check that...reading above, you admit that the President/CEO of the company wrote the article and that you are related. Clearly...without question, this is a total violation of WP:COI. This article should be deleted immediately. You folks had no business adding this to Wikipedia in the first place because of your obvious conflict of interest. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, where exactly do I admit that the President/CEO of the company wrote the article? I wrote the article, and I'm am not the President/CEO/Vice President/Janitor/Whatever.

The COI page states, "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias." I do not own the company, nor do I work at the company. The company belongs to my father and has been killing everyone in the same-day shipping industry lately. Since FedEx, BAX Global, DHL and UPS all have Wikipedia articles, and Jet Delivery is better than them as far as same-day shipping goes (yes, bias here, but not in the article), I though it would make a relevant article so I decided to do some research on the internet and talk to a few people who have been at the company for a while.

Thus far I have written an objective, "unbiased" (EVERYTHING is biased to some extent) encyclopedia article, cited reliable third-party sources, followed the five pillars and satisfied the requirements for Notability as defined by Wikipedia.org.

As far as COI goes, I have not once cited myself, gain nothing financially, make no legal gains, am not promoting myself nor am I campaigning. The only criterion met under COI is "close relationships". However, Wikipedia explicitly states, "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias." I agree - closeness "may" incline one towards bias. Though, up to this point, not one community member has pointed out any bias, nor has any member given a concrete example of this article being spam. Bbarbata (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not, but it sure looks fishy. And you know what they say...if it looks fishy (in this case, your obvious relationship to the company doesn't add crediblity. Rather, it seriously detracts from it), it usually is. I'm not accusing you of anything. But IMHO, it really looks bad that the owner of the company wrote the article, regardless of content. Think of it in terms of journalism. This would never pass muster. You may have perfectly noble motives. However, it has a strong appearance of self-promotion and using a free resource to do it, IMHO. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your brother isn't the President/Owner/CEO? Your earlier statement led me to believe that. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you've made your point here. I think Bbarbata is trying to do the right thing. Kevin (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, if the owner (my father) wrote this article, then I would be much more inclined to agree that there is a COI. I understand your concern about my relation with the company as well. I really did try to write it as neutral as possible. Ha when I showed my father the published article (besides me having to explain to him what wikipedia is), he actually wanted me to change a lot of the article, but I explained that the article must be written from a neutral frame-of-reference. And my brother, Jbarbata, doesn't own the company. He works on the IT side at the company. Bbarbata (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * True. But he DID ask. :-) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as spam and per everyone else. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2008 (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.