Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stratajet


 * 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 no consensus. Firstly, lets get WP:DINC out of the way, which applies to the original nomination statement. A mere suspicion that an article has been written by a COI editors is also not a reason for deletion. Those aside, there seems to be no agreement amongst editors as to whether the sources provided are sufficient to make this a notable subject and a suitable topic for an article. I suggest cleaning up any of the blatant advertising and making a decision then as to whether to re-nominate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Stratajet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Alleged to be an A7 article, although at this point G11 may be more apropreiate, anyway the article looks like it could be salvaged with some copy-editing and perhaps a little more information of a less advertisement-y nature. Listing for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as advertising overall, there's no actual substantial coverage, and even then, the information is all either advertising the company's services, its finances and noticeably its "corporate affairs", this is business listing and there's nothing else to suggest otherwise. SwisterTwister   talk  19:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Argument for page to remain


 * Dear all,
 * I would like to argue the case for this page to remain. I reference the following Wiki entry about a 'competitor', PrivateFly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PrivateFly, which follows a similar format, laying out the history of the company and the company's services.
 * I would suggest that the proposed content for Stratajet is similar and, most importantly, entirely factual (as per the references). Yes, of course there is an 'advertisement-y' element to this but surely that's the case with all entries that reference companies - aren't they designed to talk about the relevant company's services? The PrivateFly entry is similarly promoting the company's services.


 * The question of 'coverage' is referenced above - by this do you mean media coverage? If so, there is a multitude of media coverage on Stratajet across Europe and U.S, in publications such as GQ, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Financial Times, Business Insider, Yahoo!, Marketing Week, Tech City News, Aviation Week, and many more. Would it help to reference more of these articles?
 * I will naturally do whatever I can to more fully build the Stratajet copy, so would appreciate any advice. There is a lot of additional information that can be supplied to make the page more 'concrete', for example partnerships (similar to the PrivateFly page), which I will continue to build into the page.
 * Of course I would also be grateful for any other advice on how to make the copy less 'promotional'.
 * I look forward to hearing people's thoughts.
 * Jamesgwinnett (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree with the nominator: this article can easily be fixed by the usual editing process. I dunno what searching the single delete voter above did, but it evidently was not a very good search, or they simply have no understanding of what significant coverage means when dealing with a company or organization.   Here's just a few samples of that significant coverage to start with:
 * This website lets you book private jet rides that are cheaper than some commercial flights from Business Insider
 * Stratajet: private jet hire made simple from Financial Times
 * How to fly by private jet for economy prices from GQ
 * Fancy a private jet? There's an app for that from CNBC
 * Web Summit: Investors line up to get on board private jet hire company from The Irish Times
 * and more.  Now the user that voted delete above can reply to this vote in an excessively verbose manner to once again give us all evidence that they do not understand what significant coverage is.  Go!  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Commment and analysis - First of all, there's no need for personal comments and attitude such as visibly shouting out to analysis (such as visibly showing personal criticism of what other comment are listed here), since this is what an AfD is about, so any refusal about acknowledging and considering how those sources are PR, is that the headlines are PR themselves, "This website lets you book private jet rides that are cheaper than some commercial flights", "private jet hire made simple", "Summit investors line up to get on board private jet hire company" (FYI, it's an interview), all of that is PR and PR alone, simply citing that the major news source talked or mentioned them is entirely PR, in that the company is the only and, honestly best source, for any information about the company itself, and the fact this is a company that would clearly accept PR for their business, it's not surprising. Everything else from those articles never talk about anything else than interviewed information or company activities, which is not an article in itself, it's a business listing. The BusinessInsider itself begins with a "Strajet bills itself as...." which is then followed by what the company offers and how the company started, that's not journalism, that's PR, and blatant PR at that. With this said, these would not serve any actual improvements to the article because the entire article currently then actually looks like a PR piece itself, by having not only services but then other trivial information only clients and investors would want to know. None of those sources therefore could be called "significant, substantial, independent news or PR-immune". As always, deletion as advertising is an excellent explanation for deleting, especially if the only sources are they themselves advertising. SwisterTwister  talk  19:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I would like to thank people for taking the time to comment/post here and I reference another similar Wiki page to support my below points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_(jet_charter_company). Victor is a 'competitor of Stratajet, so particularly relevant in this case.
 * Response to "Comment and analysis'

The coverage of Victor is highly promotional / 'blatant PR' in the same way that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SwisterTwister highlights is the case for Stratajet. I would suggest that, even though the 'coverage' of Stratajet has so far been positive, it is nonetheless coverage - the articles have merely been written in a particular way due to the proposition of the company. If you look at the Victor 'references' they are as follows:


 * Reference 1: http://uk.businessinsider.com/victor-app-uber-for-private-jets-2015-3 ... Victor — 'Uber for private jets' - this is a promotional article that also quotes the Founder as saying, "We make it cheaper by removing the broker. It's a really simple process — it's quick, easy, and there's just one fee."


 * Reference 4: http://www.worldfinance.com/markets/how-victor-is-opening-the-skies-to-private-aviation ... Victor is opening the skies to private aviation - again, this is PR. The Founder is quoted: "This transparency puts power back in the hands of private aviation customers."


 * Reference 5: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/8700083/Private-jet-share-business-born-out-of-frustration.html ... Victor, which aims to open up the world of luxury travel to the wider market - the opening sentence says, 'It began as a brainwave ...' and the article promotes Victor's services: 'allows members to book spare seats on private flights already chartered by other travellers'.

I would suggest that these references have precisely the same tone as the Stratajet references but obviously the Victor page has remained, so there is no valid argument for the Stratajet page to be deleted.

Thank you for your consideration. Jamesgwinnett (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally Other stuff exists and it does not have much weight in a deletion discussion. However the general sentiment of basing a keep !vote on significant coverage in reliable sources is valid.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. See source examples below. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America1000 15:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (addendum)


 * Comment and analysis - Not only are nearly half of the listed sources above actually mentioned earlier, but the different ones actually then go to mention the same things, what there is to advertise about the company and that alone (The Italian article even goes to start with a flashy photo"). The Spears is as blatant as these others, it begins with a flashy photo of the man and his plane....and it's then an interview, with finishing with the best part of course! .... "Stratajet is available in", not only was that businessman-supplied information, but it's advertising of course. The CNBC goes to mention the company a mere 5 times, and that's simply a few sentences or so, there's no actual depth or substance, what's else is that the few sentences there are, are simply advertising what the company is and what its services are (another case where there can be no PR-immune guarantee, especially as national a source like CNBC), The GQ article begins with trivial information until going to "Unlike other private jet chartering apps, Stratajet allows you to see final, bookable prices for private jets, rather than quotes or estimates, and can bring the “per person” cost down to compete with business class, first class flights, and sometimes even economy ticket prices. Stratajet also doesn’t require membership fees: you simply look up a flight, book with the app on your credit card or Apple Pay, and head to the airport for your flight".... that's company PR and that alone, there was no journalism happening because it was all company-supplied, and unbelievably like the Spears, it shows the same exact photo and interview with the businessman himself (the next paragraphs are, of course, talking about the company and what it is, once again company-supplied PR). To then state the obvious, each time a journalist came at all close to making journalism sentences, it quickly went to the businessman interview again.... That shows only one thing, that PR agents were clearly involved and they were involved heavily. As always, copyediting means nothing if all the information as shown here and above by my comments earlier, show it's PR and that alone, we are not an advertising platform and no sources should convince us to become one otherwise. SwisterTwister   talk  17:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – The sources I provided in my !vote demonstrate that WP:CORPDEPTH is met. They are all bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources, and they all provide significant coverage. No evidence has been provided that these news providers have been paid by Stratajet for publishing these articles, and no such evidence likely exists, because it's highly unlikely. Also, I have added another source to the end of the list I provided above. North America1000 18:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as pure unadulterated corporate spam. With sections such as "Origins", "History", "Partnerships", the likelihood of paid editing is extremely high, and that's no allowed per policy. This article should be deleted with fire so that not encourage the spammers (see WP:BOGOF). Rewriting this article on a non-notable company will only be a waste of volunteer editors' time, and the value to the encyclopedia would be minimal resulting in a WP:DIRECTORY listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 8 October 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.