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 delete. I'm declining the redirect proposal. That would appear to be subversive advertising to me. v/r - T P 02:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jetphotos.net[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article relies almost exclusively on self published sources, and what information is here is of the promotional nature. There are a couple of indepedent sources, but these are not on the actual website, but rather are written on aircraft spotting and/or aviation photography. There is a lack of independent, third-party sources which discuss this website in great details -- and those that do mention it, do so in passing. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 09:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I appreciate your comments, we should also look at Airliners.net article in this case which is a similar website, however has absolutely no independent citations whatsoever regarding the website in the article.

In the case of Jetphotos.net article, there are at least credible mentions of the website in other articles.

Either both articles should stay, or both articles should be deleted. There should not be an article for one without the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelmg (talk • contribs) 10:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Wikipedia does not work that way. Every article is considered on its own merits; the existiance or non-existiance of any other article is absolutely irrelevant to an AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the event that the AfD closes with a delete decision, I would request that a redirect be kept and directed towards aviation photography. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 09:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2011 (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.