Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JACDEC

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 Keep. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JACDEC[edit]

WP:SOAP R.Schuster (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JACDEC is neither an independent organization, nor an authority or similar. Much more it seems to be a publishing company for books respectively an author's website. The website does not explain on which data the conclusions are based nor where they originate. This is a clear case of self-promotion and the obvious attempt, to establish some kind of respectability for the company with the help of wikipedia. The following evidences occur:

Already the front page promotes their books. These books does not really seem to be serious publications.
The About-Us- page does not explain who one really is or where the data came from. The bulk of the text focuses on the promotion of their books.
The References-page does not list any organizations or enterprises in relevance to aviation security.
For detailed information one have to pay.
Google found ~~less than 6,000 pages~~, of which many are simple link-collections, or even have nothing to do with the company (similarity of names). (No, I have not looked through all 6,000 pages...) Correction: Only 504 hits. --R.Schuster (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--R.Schuster (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis Google search is completely irrelevant. --Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 19:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this google-search for JACDEC is more relevant: 486 hits. Best regards, --R.Schuster (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The index is used in reliable sources, as a source as well as a topic, which to me makes it notable (and as a matter of fact, it's the only air traffic safety index I've ever heard of). See [1] in the Süddeutsche Zeitung and [2] in Focus (German magazine). --Amalthea^Talk 21:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is enough to meet the notability guidelines according to WP:COMPANY. Below are the results of a google search with -wikipedia by 22:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC):

JACDEC: 423 hits
JACDEC Safety Index: 18 hits
jacdec-index: 26 hits
Google Scholar search for JACDEC: 3 hits

Best regards, --R.Schuster (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing more for keeping the JACDEC index than for the company—I consider the index, being seemingly the major (only?) aircraft safety index in Germany, to be very notable. I don't want to make this into a question of counting ghits, but it is used in multiple reliable sources in Germany, Russia, Spain, and elsewhere as a measurement of airline security [3] [4] [5].
Maybe the best solution is to turn the article around, make it about the index, and only mention the company in a section. --Amalthea^Talk 22:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The JACEC-index is unfeasible for judging airline-safety, because it allows a statement like "Lufthansa is infinitely more unsafe than Ghana International Airlines". --R.Schuster (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is in no way relevant when determining its notability though. --Amalthea^Talk 23:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources found by Amalthea above demonstrate notability. The majority of the nominator's argument seems to revolve around the reliability of JACDEC's web site and statistics, which is completely irrelavent to notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.