Talk:Jingle Networks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 November 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Jingle Networks is a company that has a business model similar to Google.com. The difference is that the search takes place over the telephone instead of using the web. Customers use the service for free because the fees are paid for by advertisers.

That still does not change the fact that it's advertising. -WarthogDemon 20:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In that regard, any wiki page for a business is advertising. In order for an article to be considered "blatant advertising," it must contain "inappropriate content." The current list of facts presented in the article is used to highlight the importance of the company/article (given that this is a criterion required by wikipedia). Goldman Sachs typically does not fund a fly-by-night company. That is why it is included as a reference in the article. One could argue that the article does not reflect NPOV. However, most of what is presented are facts or industry estimates. Industry analysts have argued that Jingle Networks has an "interesting business model" as evinced by its recent growth. This information is not presented in the article because it could be construed as violating NPOV. Do you have constructive comments as to what constitutes non-advertising information on an article related to a business? Does the article have to contain postive as well as negative information or can it possibly contain only neutral information? -J 21:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Before worrying about the neutrality of the article you have to make sure it satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). At this time, the article does not do so. Not being "blatant" advertising only saves an article from being speedy-deleted, not from deletion in general. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If the concern is not that the article is spam, but must pass the notability test, than I am in agreement with that. I originally intended to add more information regarding the perceived uniqueness of the business model. However, my concern is that this would be treated as against the NPOV policy. Unfortunately, there are different standards of "notability" on Wikipedia. I personally feel that an article about a business that provides a unique service is more notable than the List of people predominantly seen wearing sunglasses. -J 05:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's arguable, yes, but it's also arguable that that List doesn't belong either, so such an argument doesn't gain much ground at all and with some people will actually have the opposite effect. A unique business model also doesn't deserve treatment by Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is impartial and doesn't assume the authority to determine what "unique" actually means. For that reason, we let the Real World decide what is important first, and then we document what the Real World says about a subject. In this case though, enough Real World talk about Jingle Networks/FREE411 has been dug up that there's plenty to base an article on now, so it's highly unlikely to be deleted. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging with the Jingle Networks article

It makes sense that the 1-800-Free411 article and the Jingle Networks article should be merged. If this is agreed upon, however, I'd like to insist that the resulting article should be called 1-800-Free411, since this is the name that is known to consumers. It seems unlikely to me that anyone would search for "Jingle Networks," since that's only the parent company of the better-known service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.247.194.194 (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)