Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rojo.com

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Note: one probable sockpuppet discounted. Rossami (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rojo.com

NN, was originally on speedy claiming to have failed Google Test. - Mailer Diablo 16:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I have greeted intial editor and asked for input as to either speedy or reason to keep other than advertising. Alf 17:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• May fail Google test, but I find the result of the Alexa test, quite respectable: rank 18,415. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I can't easily grok your deletion policy. Is Rojo.com being considered for deletion because it is a commercial enterprise or because it is presumed to an advertising ploy? It is certianly a commercial enterprise, not unlike Bloglines, Feedster, Technorati, and dozens of other companies referenced in Wikipedia. Rojo has been covered by many major publications such as Forbes, Fortune, Red Herring, etc. (see: http://rojo.jot.com/Press) and has many thousands of users. The service is available here: http://www.rojo.com, the associated blog is here: http://blog.rojo.com, and the corporate site is located here: www.rojonetworks.com (also rojo.jot.com). Any questions about our true existence of Rojo can be sent to feedback@rojo.com.

• Original author here. Created article based on similarly intended services with wiki entries, Bloglines, RSSOwl, AmphetaDesk, Kinja, LiveJournal, Newster, RSS_Feed_Reader. After consideration, 'Rojo Networks' is likely a better page title. This is an important and emerging tool along the lines of Flickr, Technorati, Feedster, etc. Article should include history and additional academic information about the significance of the service. Alf was correct that I have not read advertising policy, which I will read shortly. However, this site was in no way intended as an advertisement. If that is the issue at hand, then I will gladly modify it to eliminate that concern. Here 20:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I find no problems with the current article considering the comperable wiki entries for Flickr, Bloglines, RSSOwl, AmphetaDesk, Kinja, LiveJournal, Newster, RSS_Feed_Reader and other web services articles. Not only is its popularity on par with listed apps, but it also provides a unique approach to the service by including social networking. I am working on adding more information to flesh out the encyclopedic value of the article. Further considering no violation of the following advertising policy: (from Wikipedia is not a propoganda machine) (Not) Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. Here 21:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing special about this aggregator; already appears in lists. Sdedeo 21:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The aggregator is unique in its use of tags and a social network in one web app. Here 22:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing convincingly notable asserted about this service. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm a little biased, I'll admit (see this), but I believe that Rojo has something that sets it apart from other online aggregators. Tagging, flagging, sharing of feed data and commentary are parts of that, and currently it's not substantially different from BlogLines when it comes to those things, but Bloglines has its own wikipedia page, and I think that Rojo is going somewhere different with what it's doing as well. --Cori.schlegel 02:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment original author again , Please see Wikipedia:Websites#Guidelines_for_Websites.

Criteria guidelines.

1. Alexa Rank 10,000 or higher (18,762 -- fails, but close)
2. National Press Coverage (definitely true)
3. 5,000 aparently unique users (definitely thousands, not sure of user base)

Here 20:12, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.