Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gogo Charters

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Particularly per the AfD, and because the newly offered sources aren't enough to overcome the GNG objections raised at the AfD. , since you're fairly new, let me skim quickly over the sources for you so you know why I feel that way:


 * 1) Gust: Just a business listing. Not in-depth coverage as required by WP:GNG, and more strictly by WP:CORPDEPTH
 * 2) Inc.com: Entirely in Harris's voice, so not independent, as required by WP:GNG. Doesn't even mention Gogo Charters anyway.
 * 3) Business Insider: Also doesn't even mention Gogo Charters.
 * 4) UK School Trips: Business listing on a commercial site, not a reliable source per our standards. Even if the site were reliable, the content fails WP:CORPDEPTH for being only a business listing.
 * 5) The Refugee Center: A blog, so not a great source. Again, mostly focused on Harris and the scholarship. While Gogo is mentioned, any discussion of it is trivial in comparison to the focus on Harris.

If you have any more questions about my thoughts here please drop a line on my talk page and we can chat. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Gogo Charters


Recently deleted at AfD SeraphWiki (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * AfD Link? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Gogo Charters SeraphWiki (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Articles for deletion/Gogo Charters, which shows a clear decision that the topic is not suitable. It is not fixable by drafting.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi SmokeyJoe, I've used this company before for a couple of field trips and noticed their page was gone because of its advertorial content. I'm an English teacher and enjoy rewriting things, so I redrafted the page using as unbiased a wording as possible. I thought it'd be a good first article for my Wiki. Is the content still problematic?--Towelquinones (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Towelquinones. It's great that you have commented, thanks.  So many newcomers associated with new promotional pages don't get that far.


 * Writing a page on this company is immediately a difficult ask, because it is a currently operating commercial company, and people wanting to write about such topics are so often connected to them and primarily seeking to promote them. Wikipedia is particularly resistant to that.  Accordingly, there is a fairly tough guideline, Notability (organizations and companies), that serves to restrict what new articles may be accepted.


 * You should, before attempting a rewrite, be aware of Articles for deletion/Gogo Charters, where in a fairly formal process, it was decided that the topic is inherently not suitable. The opening line by the nominator for deletion, "Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG due to lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent sources", basically says it all.  To overcome that reason for deletion, you must provide new sources that are all of: independent, reliable, cover the topic directly and in non-trivial depth.  No sponsored articles.  No blogs.  Must be published by a reliable source, not reader submitted.


 * In your rewrite, you have essentially Reference bombed the draft. Regular Wikipedia editors become unenthusiastic to crawl through many fine-point references to find the required two to three that meet the requirement.  If you think there are independent sources discussing this company, I suggest you list them here, on this page, before this discussion closes.  Note that you are attempting a Rescue.  This is an advanced skill, not recommended for newcomers.


 * Alternatively, I suggest that you get up to speed with what Wikipedia is by improving existing content before attempting to write new pages. Start with something you are interested in.  Start with something current covered by Wikipedia, but poorly.   Do a Wikipedia search for them, and improve existing mentions across multiple articles.  Beware of attempting to improve WP:Orphan topics.  Notable topics are almost always well connected to multiple other notable topics.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and SmokeyJoe. To Towelquinones, it's not an issue of the content being promotional, but that there was already a discussion recently where the Wikipedia community determined that Gogo Charters was not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm sorry that this is your experience for your first Wikipedia article. A good way to get started on Wikipedia, if you want to create new articles from the ground-up, is to work on something that's covered extensively in print media, especially books. It's a good way to get your feet wet with minimal risk of the article subject being inappropriate for inclusion. Another option, of course, is to look around for articles that need improvement in ways where your expertise would be helpful. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Smokey and Mendaliv, thank you so much for your detailed responses and for being willing to help a newbie here. Like most first-time Wiki users, I didn't peruse all the rules and simply jumped in. I was too excited to get started.

This was a test for me - a trial run, if you will. I'm planning to write and edit articles for topics that interest me more, such as writing, publishing, books in general, and young adult literature. My current topic list includes YA authors Sara Holland (a different one than the one currently on Wiki), Stephanie Garber, and Becky Albertalli, whose name redirects to her book Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda. I plan to cite quite a few sources to make sure these authors' articles are founded on sound research.

By citing as many references as I did in this gogo charters article, I was trying to make sure each of my statements was substantiated by multiple sources. What would you say is the sweet spot for the number of references? If I did too many now, what would you recommend I do for future articles? I realize this may not have an easy answer - my apologies for that! I simply want to make sure I don't reference-bombard an article again.

In terms of this gogo charters page: I'm not sure it's inherently unsuitable when there are a number of bus companies included in Wiki: note all the ones available on List of bus operating companies. (Before trying to write this page, I made sure I wasn't doing something out of the normal range! Didn't want to add something that wouldn't help) I looked at a few bus pages to have some sort of style guide to follow and found Badger Bus and Barons Bus Lines - these guys don't have any substantial sources and the sources that do exist lead to their web page. Is there something about their notability I'm missing?

The independent sources (they don't seem press release-y to me, but I might be wrong here) I would offer for this draft article are:


 * Gust (About the company)


 * Inc (About the founder)


 * Business Insider (About the founder)


 * School Trips UK (Interview style? Between the company and this site)


 * Refugee Center (About the scholarship; not press release-y, I don't think)

I realize this was a challenge for my first article - but since it was only a matter of a rewrite, it seemed more fun to tackle! I couldn't resist. - Towelquinones (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.