User talk:Phantomsteve

---

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page — it will be on my watchlist anyway, so I will see your response If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page — please let me know if you need a talkback to let you know that I've answered. This will ensure that conversations remain together! Please click here to leave me a new message.

vn-61This user talk page has been vandalized 61 times.

---

Reminder: outstanding PRODs and AfDs

This will save me having to look through "My Contributions"! (NB all times UTC)

Another useful link: Wikipedia:Deletion review

Expiration	AfD/PROD	Article
08:13, 16 July 2011	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Winterbottom	Kevin Winterbottom
08:28, 16 July 2011	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corero Network Security	Corero Network Security
13:49, 16 July 2011	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Washington Carver Peanut Discoveries	George Washington Carver Peanut Discoveries
00:01, 18 July 2011	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sporting Clube de Portugal Youth Sector	Sporting Clube de Portugal Youth Sector

Deletion reviews...

Started	Review	Article	Where restored if nec.
None at the moment

DR

I've apologized for misunderstanding you at the DR of Ideas People Media. I should have known better, for I did realize at the time that your comment in the way I (mis)understood it was out of character for someone who gives advice as carefully as you do. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries! I saw it, but the section is too large for me to respond on my mobile phone! I understand why you wrote what you wrote, someone looking at the discussion on this page could get that impression! Thanks for apologising though, it is appreciated -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 05:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

• From the editor: Stepping down

• Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap

• News and notes: Wikipedians' surfing habits explored, Sloan Foundation renews $3M grant

• In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting

• WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close

• Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Flight Options

Hello,

You deleted my "Flight Options" page and I would like to request it be re-instated. Flight Options notability is that it was the first company in the history of Fractional Aircraft to offer it's customers shares of previously owned aircraft, as opposed to NetJets who only offered new aircraft. It is significant within the aviation industry, and certainly within the fractional aircraft industry. Additionally, they are the second largest provider of fractional aircraft in the country and frequently cited as experts in the fractional aviation industry in news reports and stories. If Flight Options is deemed not worthy of a page, then so too should be Netjets, Citation Air, Flexjet and any other company page in the industry.

Thank you

Jeff Scheid Scheidja (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, thanks for contacting me. I see that the article has been deleted a total of four times (twice as Flight options and twice as Flight Options). The reasons for the deletions (which date from April) are 1 x copyright infringement; 1 x advertising-like article; twice that no claim to notability was made.

The existence of other articles (or non-existance) does not necessarily have any no bearing on the existance of this article. However, looking at those other articles, Netjets has references from a couple of books and news media; Citation Air does not appear to have an article, and I would argue that Flexjet should be mentioned in the main Bombardier Aerospace article, as there are not currently references - but that mention of it is perfectly valid.

It is interesting that the Bloomberg article about Flight options which was published yesterday (which would not be considered as a suitable source in its own right, as it's a "standard announcement" based on a press release) mentions the loan being to buy 'new' jets, and makes no mention about their fleet being previously-owned (it does mention the "second largest in the US" though). The company's website page Our Fleet makes no mention of the fleet being previously-owned. All the other coverage I can find are press releases (or obviously based on press releases), and yet none of those mention the "previously-owned" aspect. As such, I do not see that the company currently meets the General Notability Guidelines (and specifically the guidelines for businesses), and so even if it was to be restored, I would feel the need to nominate it for deletion at articles for deletion.

I note that you are the SEO/SEM Manager of the company, and so you have a clear conflict of interest, and this is another reason why you would appear to be using Wikipedia for promotional purposes.

Is there significant coverage of the company at multiple reliable sources which are independent of the company (i.e. not your website, not your press releases, not minor coverage such as a single-sentence mention) that you could point me to? As I say, all the coverage I could find was either press releases, or obviously based on press releases, and so not independent of the company. If you can provide some links to suitable coverage, we can go from there.

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I should explain that if the article was nominated for deletion at "Articles for deletion", this would result in a 7-day discussion with the result being made according to the consensus - while by no means a certainty that the article would be deleted, if no significant coverage at multiple reliable independent sources could be found, it is almost certain to be a 'delete' consensus. I thought I should explain that, as what I wrote above could imply that if I nominated it then it would 100% definitely be deleted, whereas it is not 100%, as someone else might find the coverage which is required and which I missed for some reason. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 10:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Hi Steve, Thank you for your post. Please note that I never made any edits of any kind to the Corero page as I adhere to guidelines. Again, please go back and check and you will see this to be the case. As well, please review the posts I made to Andrew. I solicited advice and I stated clearly that the company had mistakenly made those posts out of lack of knowledge of wiki guidelines -- I was unaware as I was in the process of joining the company - and that once they knew they stopped. Additionally, please note that I was uncertain in terms of notability if the third party validation would suffice -- the links I listed on Andrew's talk back page -- and asked for his input. Per your post, I was part of the discussion but made no alterations to the page because of the conflict of interest and because of the wiki guidelines which I respect. Please go back and review the page to see that this is the case. Looking forward to hearing from you. Kind regards. 75.244.32.126 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

conflict

Also, Victor is not an employee of Corero. We use another PR firm -- as you will see on the website. I have used in the past his services for Twitter and to post releases and asked for his advise on this matter within the framework of wiki guidelines. You will note -- I am now looking at the additions -- that there is nothing subjective or editoria. As well, I understand that Wiki is understandably concerned with providing factual, reliable information. If the company meets the notability guidelines and can objectively show this -- and again, we adhered to the guidelines post the initial infraction -- than would the deletion be unwarranted?