From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia is not free advertising, please see the pages on neutral point. I might nominate this page for deletion based on it's lack of relevance.

I'd argue to not delete the article. Kajeet is a business but also an entity that non-customers may want to find out about. Note that wikipedia has a "MVNO" category... would you argue to delete all the articles in that category? brain (talk)

Of course Wikipedia is not free advertising. But it's an open discussion as to what constitutes information and what constitutes advertising, particularly for a new company. "Buy this!" and "kajeet is great!" and "every kid needs to have a kajeet phone" is clearly advertising. None of that was posted in the original article. Is listing the phone hardware offered by kajeet advertising or informational? I would argue it's informational, though I can understand where many would consider it advertising. I will leave it to others who might agree to reinstate a hardware listing, and to look at listings for Amp'd and Boost Mobile as analagous examples.

Similarly, I believe the idea that kajeet underwent an extensive beta test with thousands of kids and parents to be information and not advertising.

Should the kajeet article be deleted? No more than any other article on any other company generally (Microsoft, Apple, ad infinitum) or any cell phone company specifically (Amp'd, Boost, Disney Mobile, etc.). kajeet is a new company in a high-profile, highly competitive field. That the company is developing their product for kids is certainly newsworthy (witness the TIME magazine article). That some of the material in the original article about kajeet has been modified is certainly fair: There's no need to include an excerpt from the TIME article when someone can click over to it and read the entire article.

I'm a fan of Wikipedia. Certainly kajeet deserves to be listed. Equally certain, kajeet does not wish to abuse the spirit of Wikipedia in any respect.

Ckpcreative 16:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)CKPcreative

If you read WP:CORP you will see that there are criteria for what makes a company notable. You will therefore see that Microsoft, Apple and others meet these criteria. Just because an article exists on company xyz that doesn't mean that an article should existy for company abc — each case is different.

Are you speaking on behalf of kajeet?

I note that there seems to be one TIME article rehashed twice, not two separate articles. Rich257 23:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kajeet logo 200w nobeta.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Kajeet logo 200w nobeta.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)