Talk:1-800-FREE-411

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

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Telecommunications Low‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications 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.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Which name?[edit]

People searching for information about 1-800-free411 would not search for "Jingle," since that name is probably unknown to them. They would search instead for "1-800-Free411," a much better-known name. Notability has been established already (see the original discussions regarding this issue). Also, consider that other companies with more or less the same service, like GOOG-411 and 800-The-Info have their own articles. 1-800-Free-411, meanwhile, is the acknowledged leader in the free d.a. market, and therefore is much more notable than those others. If someone believes that the current "1-800-FREE411" article looks too much like an ad, then we can clean it up and make it more neutral, rather than delete it entirely. 21:18 & 21:25, 17 June 2008 User:Rotini

About Jingle Networks[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merging with the Jingle Networks article[edit]

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)[reply]

1-800-Free411 article should be restored and Jingle article should be deleted[edit]

It made sense to merge the two articles, but the stronger of the two was deleted and the weaker of the two was kept. I propose that the 1-800-Free411 article be restored and the Jingle article redirect to the 1-800-Free411 article. As a new guy here, I don't want to offend anyone's sensibilities by doing this without discussing it first. Very few people searching for information on free directory assistance options will know what Jingle Networks is, as they will with Jingle's service, 1-800-Free411. Jingle is not notable, but its service is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotini (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising?[edit]

The introduction to this article appears to be written like an advertisement, so I have added the advert template to the article. Am I wrong? I would appreciate posting the reason why on my talk page. Thanks. 24.162.234.113 (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. There are a few things about it which are very PRish. The mention of Nuance Communications (who cares), their privacy policy, the inference that advertisers pay for all of the calls (which they do not according to what I've read - they are still barely profitable, if at all) and the suggestion that all 411 calls cost up to $2. For instance, I live in Massachusetts, have Verizon service, and I get 10 free 411 calls per month.Mattnad (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one think it's pretty factual. Follow the references if you want and you'll see that it's all backed up. The first paragraph says 411 calls are "typically $1 to $2." The info supported by the Privacy Policy is important because consumers are suspicious about 1-800 numbers sharing their information. Whether or not anyone cares about their automation technology is a matter of opinion. The company is profitable (again, follow the references and see). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotini (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotini, your POV would have more weight if you hadn't only worked on this article for the most part. We see a lot PR shills for companies (among many categories) pimping up article on the behalf of their masters. What I can't tell is whether you're coming at it from a Nuance or 800-Free411 perspective. And where does your belief that the consumer are suspicious about 800 numbers comes from? Sounds like WP:OR or insider information to me. At any rate, it's a statement that's true (in that it parrots a FAQ page written for a marketing purpose), but it's for advertising purposes. It's to calm prospective user concerns. Reminds me of old ads by cigarette companies "4 out of 5 doctors prefer Camel Cigarettes." I've made a couple of changes to make this less of a promo piece.Mattnad (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just got my fiancee's Sprint bill, and was most assuredly charged $1.99 for a single 411 call. I think perhaps the "inflated rate of $2 a call" bit in the Corporate Overview section could be adjusted to be more neutral. I'm not quite sure what wording to use -- their site does claim *up to* $2 per call, and in my case that's only "inflation" of a penny, but I'm not sure "up to" is appropriate wording here, since they probably did base the calculation on all 411 calls being billed at $2/call. Suggestions or changes would be appreciated -- Dok Jones 16:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the article is much less of a promo piece. However, the first paragraph still says "Customers who do not use a free service can pay $1 to $2 to place each 411 call," which still sounds like advertising to me, so I've removed that sentence from the paragraph. Regards. Retro00064 (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinued?[edit]

I called it the other day and it was working. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]