Talk:AirHelp
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 October 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Advert[edit]
Likely notable, but looks like a glowing review of the service as it talks about its ratings, where you can get the app, etc. Needs to be more in encyclopedic tone and less like the company website. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Adding a criticism section also does not negate the tone of the page. Things such as - "The service offered by AirHelp is facilitated by the AirHelp app, available for free on Google Play[11] and App Store (iOS)." - read like a pitch for the company, not an encyclopedic article. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- @CNMall41: Apologies for not having checked the talk page before my previous edit, thanks for prompting in the summary. I had and have no intention whatsoever of writing an advertorial for AirHelp! Nonetheless, the notability of the company has been established in the AfD discussion and I am integrating the links offered there into the article. Should I remove the links to the app in Google play and App Store? Please provide a couple of constructive edits indicating the style that would be appropriate (and actually, I'm happy to meet a fellow editor who is against glowing reviews. I have been trying to insert well-referenced facts about the shortcomings in the services provided by an aviation enterprise elsewhere on Wikipedia and my edits keep getting reverted, with nonsense summaries. I have practically given up as I can't fight the reverters alone. See my edits and summaries here and opinion on the talk page here.Saintfevrier (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC) )
- I am not quite sure the notability of the company has been established. The AfD only had one participant outside of the creator of the nominator. It looks more like lack of participation than anything. It may be worth requesting it be re-opened for further discussion. You do what you feel needs to be done to clean up the page, I don't plan on spending the time to do so. However, the tag should remain until there is a clear consensus that it is not advertorial. On your other note, that is something that needs to be discussed at that page, not this one. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- @CNMall41:Regarding my last edit (removal of advert template) and the summary of your revert: I am NOT edit warring. According to the discussion so far here on the talk page, I deemed that the issue had been remedied (I don't spend all my time watching the page and was happily surprised to discover last night that another editor had contributed in the direction of remedying the issue). Please advise as to what needs to be done NOW to have the tag removed. I will refrain from editing the page until the issue has been resolved but I would really like to know what more is needed. Good faith is in place :) Saintfevrier (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- WP:CONS is needed, not one of us deeming it. The page to me still reads promotional. I gave an example above of one of the items. It reads more like the company website than anything that belongs in Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. We shall wait for consensus. Thanks for your time. Saintfevrier (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- WP:CONS is needed, not one of us deeming it. The page to me still reads promotional. I gave an example above of one of the items. It reads more like the company website than anything that belongs in Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- @CNMall41:Regarding my last edit (removal of advert template) and the summary of your revert: I am NOT edit warring. According to the discussion so far here on the talk page, I deemed that the issue had been remedied (I don't spend all my time watching the page and was happily surprised to discover last night that another editor had contributed in the direction of remedying the issue). Please advise as to what needs to be done NOW to have the tag removed. I will refrain from editing the page until the issue has been resolved but I would really like to know what more is needed. Good faith is in place :) Saintfevrier (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- I am not quite sure the notability of the company has been established. The AfD only had one participant outside of the creator of the nominator. It looks more like lack of participation than anything. It may be worth requesting it be re-opened for further discussion. You do what you feel needs to be done to clean up the page, I don't plan on spending the time to do so. However, the tag should remain until there is a clear consensus that it is not advertorial. On your other note, that is something that needs to be discussed at that page, not this one. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- @CNMall41: Apologies for not having checked the talk page before my previous edit, thanks for prompting in the summary. I had and have no intention whatsoever of writing an advertorial for AirHelp! Nonetheless, the notability of the company has been established in the AfD discussion and I am integrating the links offered there into the article. Should I remove the links to the app in Google play and App Store? Please provide a couple of constructive edits indicating the style that would be appropriate (and actually, I'm happy to meet a fellow editor who is against glowing reviews. I have been trying to insert well-referenced facts about the shortcomings in the services provided by an aviation enterprise elsewhere on Wikipedia and my edits keep getting reverted, with nonsense summaries. I have practically given up as I can't fight the reverters alone. See my edits and summaries here and opinion on the talk page here.Saintfevrier (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC) )