Talk:CitationAir

Hello,

There was a tag for speedy deletion on the recent CitationShares entry. There are many companies that are in the same business, NetJets and AvantAir, as CitationShares with entries on Wikipedia and the entries do not differ greatly in format or tone.

This article is important, because all encyclopedia users should have access to forms of private aviation. They should also be able to research and find out information about different private aviation companies. And as long as the content remains neutral I do not see why CItationShares entry should be deleted.

Thank you, Leviap5 (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this organization, and only this organization, passes WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not a website hosting service, which it appears you're trying to do given what you said in your second paragraph. Also, please take a look at WP:WAX to see why arguing for inclusion of this article based on the fact that other articles exist is not a good argument. --13² 15:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CitationShares has many articles online dsecribing the company and how it is a leader in the field of private aviation. I have added links to articles on the Wiki entry and I will continue to add more. This company adds value to Wikipedia becuase it is a mjaor player in the fractional jet market and has an impact on this market's success.

Also, CitationShares' parent company, Cessna, is a leader in business jet manufacturing and CitationShares' fleet consists of only Cessna Citation aircrafts. Leviap5 (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the links you have provided, four of the six are generic homepages for this organization and the parent company. One was written by someone with the last name of "Schultz", which is the same last name of the COO for this organization. There may not be any relation, but the fact that the article is excessively promotional (with almost no actual information) leads me to believe they are. The other link just says they've met APIS requirements. (Edit: Regarding the two new links: the Pie in the Sky article is not about CitationShares, it is about buying jets. The airliners.net site is about the plane, not the organization) None of these links verify the subject's notability.

Please provide sources that say this organization is a "major player in the fractional jet market" and that it "has an impact on this market's success." Just saying it doesn't make it true.

Please don't pull Cessna into this discussion. Cessna is an incredibly notable company. Just because it is owns this organization does not mean that it makes this company notable. --13² 16:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate that the company is generally notable, discussion of the company by independent reliable sources must be evident. There are no such sources cited in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just throw this out there: maybe a merge would be a better option than an article? You could redirect this page to Cessna, add a section there titled "CitationShares", and then put the information on this page there. --13² 16:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with Schulze: The article from RobbReport was written by Michael Schulze, but the COO is William Schultz, different name completely. The article is a 3rd party source and the two gentlemen have no relation whatsoever. I understand your suggestion about an option on Cessna's page, but I would have to disagree. I am currently adding the noteworthy articles as we speak. Thanks, Leviap5 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the "Pie in the Sky" article, and that looks like trivial, not substantial, coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I was making reference to the last names being similar. I also said I wasn't sure if there was a relation, but the promotional nature of the article (plus the fact that it was written halfway through the year, despite being titled "best of the best 2008") made me wonder. Ignoring that, it is a promotional piece, not a reliable source. It can't be used to establish notability. The new sources you've added do not verify notability. At this point, I feel you're just doing an internet search for the company name and adding whatever pages you can find. --13² 16:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am obviously not as organized as I thought... I have the articles in my files, I just need to put them together. Is there a way to take the page down now, until I have the proper references and sources organzied? Meaning, will I be able to put it back up once the Wikipedia criteria are met? Leviap5 (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the section below. I think there's enough assertion of notability right now to keep the article here. Plus, other editors can contribute to it more readily. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declining speedy[edit]

I looked at the Robb Report Best of the Best award a little closer. While a deletion discussion might decide that the award is not significant enough, I think that's a matter for discussion. I've removed the speedy deletion tag on the grounds that the award is a sufficient assertion of significance. —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References v. External links[edit]

The References section should be reserved for items that are linked to specific points in the article via the <ref> markup. Links that relate generally to the article should be External links. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided multiple sources and references for CitationShares notability. I am confused, because other companies in the private aviation market baerly have more than 2 references/sources on their wiki-entries. I understand you want to preserve the integrity and validity of Wikipedia.org, but I am confused why an entry for CitationShares, which has numerous references/sources, needs even more, while similar companies have very few.

Thanks, Leviap5 (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please see WP:WAX. --13² 17:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand WP:WAX. My question really concerns what criteria you are using to evaluate the CitationShares entry, becasue there are awards, a mention in a major US news publication that it is one of the 4 major players in the fractional jet market, and further mention of it's noteworthy young fleet. With the references and sources I have provided, I am confused why the notability of CitationShares and an entry about it is still in question. Leviap5 (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help?[edit]

I understand that all of the wiki editors are very busy, but I would love an explanation for my previous question. Regardless of other companies, CitationShares has numerous references and sources which all are evidence of CItationShares' notability.

Forbes.com, a very prestigious site, said in an article that there are 4 major players in the private aviation market and it lists CitationShares as one of these majore players.
USA Today discusses how CitationShares offers the youngest fleet in the private aviation market. Younger fleets mean newer and safer, a very noteworthy characteristic.
The New York Times also discusses one of CitationShares programs, the Vector JetCard and how JetCards are up and coming in the private aviation market.
CitationShares has also one numerous awards from the Robb Report for service, the Vector JetCard program, and others.

All of these articles are linked on the Wiki page for CitationShares. With all of these reputible, 3rd party sources discussing noteworthy characteristics of CitationShares I am still confused why there is still any doubt to this entry's notability.
Thanks,
12.193.219.10 (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I think there are enough claims of notability now to remove that tag from the Article issues template. I've left refimprove because the only references used in the article currently are to the Robb Report. Claims in the article should be sourced during cleanup.

The cleanup tag relates specifically to the Services and Fleet sections. The services section should be rewritten in prose. I think the list may still work for Fleet, but it could do with some tightening. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup response[edit]

I have addressed the services and fleet clean up issues. I also added another reference that picked up the Robb Report story and also emphasized that this was CitationShares 7 year for receiving this award. This story was also listed as a Top Story on Luxury Travel Magazine homepage. I am still confused why this site is tagged. Any clarification would be great.

Thanks,
Leviap5 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two sections are still unreferenced. I've moved tags to just those sections. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a history section should probably be added to the article. (In this case, citing a CitationShares web page would be perfectly appropriate.) —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two sections now have references. Is there any way to take those tags down now. thanks,
Leviap5 (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Both unreferenced sections are now referenced. Can the tags be taken down now? I am working on a history of the company to add.

Thanks,
Leviap5 (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —C.Fred (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused reference from first CitationAir draft[edit]

As part of merging the articles today, there was an article called Citationair: Phoenix of the fractional that I did not use in the combined text. —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the above article removed? It not only mentions the relevance of CitationAir, but also discusses the state of the private aviation industry and how CitationAir is an important part of this industry. In previous discussions you have mentioned the importance of referencing to show the validity of an entry and this article does exactly that. I do not understand why it was removed and feel it should be put back on.

thanks Levisoap (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "Further reading" section and put it in there. Some of the external links (articles about CitationAir) should be moved up from the EL section. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CitationAir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524000948/http://www to http://www

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CitationAir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]