Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jingle Networks


 * 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 and cleanup. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Jingle Networks
Contested speedy deletion candidate. Listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 00:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - At first I saw this as spam (hence my marking it as such.) Looking over it now, I no longer see it as blatant advertising but I still don't see how it's a notable page.  Since this is the first wiki article I've voted on, I asked myself if there's any possible situation where this page would be a resource for me, and I don't see how (at its current state) the article can. -WarthogDemon 00:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The standards for notability of companies are WP:CORP, not personal utility to you. Shotwell asserts below that this company is covered in multiple non-trivial published works, which would, if those works do more than simply mention the company, satisfy the WP:CORP criteria. Uncle G 12:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly spam to me. - Mike  |  Happy Thanksgiving  03:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. A LexisNexis search over the last two years brings up articles from the Boston Globe, Associated Press, The Miami Herald, The New York Sun, the Telegraph Herald, and Chicago Sun Times. These articles deal with either the novel business plan or the large amount of startup money from Goldman Sachs & Co. and Hearst Corp. The most recent article was from March 20, 2006. The rest of the LexisNexis results appear to be duplicated press releases. shotwell 03:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please cite these articles, so that editors can see how in-depth the coverage of this company is in them, and thus whether the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 12:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are just a few
 * Mary Wisniewski. Will you tolerate ads for free 411 dialing?: New companies put heat on $1-plus fees big players charge, The Chicago Sun-Times, March 20, 2006.
 * Robert Weisman. Free 411 service has a nice ring, but Jingle's comes with a catch, Boston Globe, December 7, 2005.
 * Bruce Meyerson. Goldman, Hearst Lead Jingle Investors, Associated Press Online, October 22, 2006.
 * Carolyn Shapiro. You could pay for directory assistance or you could let advertisers, The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, VA.), October 9, 2005.
 * Deborah Kolben. New Yorkers Giving Jingle Networks a Jingle for Some Free 411, The New York Sun, January 23, 2006.
 * There are some more, but they are all essentially the same. Some of those stories above were copied by multiple papers. It is important to note that these articles are only about 200-500 words each. I would personally count them as trivial, but I suppose I'm not completely sure. This company does have a novel business plan and did receive a little money from important investors, but that is their only claim to notability whatsoever. Their stock was listed as a hot buy some time ago, but there is nothing else concerning this company other than the investment and business plan. shotwell 16:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment 200-500 words, though small, isn't "trivial" to me since the whole of the article concerns the company in question. I do have to ask whether the five articles contain substantial similarities in content; if that's the case, then it should pass.  ColourBurst 17:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment They are all about the large amount of investment money or the novel business idea, and yes, their content is pretty similar. The sources given below by J did not all show up in the LexisNexis search, but the articles I presented have highly similar content. I guess that these all constitute multiple non-trivial sources? shotwell 18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete NN. Ads/press releases in papers are not the same as notability. Arbusto 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unfortunately, users have 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. Also, there are articles in important news sources about the company. Including this one from an AP Business Writer shown on the CBS news site. Perhaps this passes the notability test for companies as defined on Wikipedia. -J 05:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's one non-trivial published work. We need more for WP:CORP to be properly satisfied.  Please cite more. Uncle G 12:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the list you mentioned is up for deletion as well, which is why talking about being "more notable" than another article is not a sound plan (which I think is a synonym for "more useful" in your case, even though notability doesn't actually talk about usefulness). The article satisfies, but we need more than one.  ColourBurst 15:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 07:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of multiple on-trivial independent coverage, which makes neutrality impossible to verify. Guy 14:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Jingle Networks press page lists many articles from non-trivial news sources including the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, NY Times, Boston Globe, and The Washington Post. The NY Times article from March 9, 2006 is especially interesting in that it lists some competitors of Jingle Networks such as inFreeDA who operates 800-411-METRO and easy411.com who operates 1-877-Easy411. The easy411 service is not free, but does not have any advertisements. -J 17:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I didn't read the press articles, but it seems this company has a certain notability to me. -- lucasbfr talk 21:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The WP:CORP notability criterion that relates to this article is: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." A google search on "Jingle Networks" yields 148,000 pages. A google news search yields 164 news articles (some not necessarily unique). Virtually every major newspaper in the country has at least one article about Jingle Networks. It would be difficult to reason that these sources are not independent. The authors are different as well as the editors and media itself. I doubt that neutrality is impossible to verify in this case unless there is some mass conspiracy of journalists. I claim that it is difficult to dispute that there are multiple independent sources reporting on the company. The question then becomes, are these articles "non-trivial?" Clearly, people have differing views on what is considered trivial. I would argue that the wikipedia criteria for notability defines triviality in a particular way. One guideline is that "media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company" should be excluded from granting notability to a subject because they are trivial. Also, "Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories" should be excluded. An in-depth NY Times article does not fall under the domain of triviality according to the two exclusion clauses. Individual users may feel that Jingle Networks performs a trivial service to society or that the business is too small (and in that sense trivial) to warrant a wikipedia article; however, those notions of triviality are not in the spirit of the wikipedia notability criteria. The wikipedia notion of triviality is related to whether the published work itself is trivial in that it is a duplicate of an already existing article, an advertisement for the company, or an article published in a business directory. In that sense the article would really be trivial. The intent of the notability requirement is to prevent individuals from creating articles about their own small proprietorships or corporations. Once a company becomes important enough that it is mentioned in every major newspaper (and sometimes more than once), and the articles present different information from one another, the company has become notable enough to have a wikipedia article. I raise this issue because I believe that we should adhere to the notability and triviality criteria as defined by wikipedia rather than by using personal notions of these terms. -J 23:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. (edit conflict) Multiple non-trivial independent publications about the company (see above) demonstrate notability. The article does need attention to stop reading like an ad, the lead in particular, but this isn't grounds for deletion alone. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs attention, but meets WP:CORP due to articles. JChap2007 03:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep since it appears to meet WP:CORP. shotwell 22:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep You might want to compare with Jingle Networks and 1-800-free411: the content is almost the same. I am for keeping the former and deleting the latter. Nicolas1981 00:04, 29 June 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.