Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jango (website)

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. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jango (website)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Sources are written in promotional or advertising tone or more of a Press Release. Nothing significant achieved so far. Written like a brochure or website content. No credible reference or covered with substance by media. Article is not appropriate to the wikipedia guidelines as per WP:NOT Light21 19:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Light21 22:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep Try actually looking at the sources. CNET article, PC World article, GigaOm article. None of those are press releases. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly meets WP:GNG. Here's a Los Angeles Time article with significant coverage of Jango.com. There are plenty of other RS in the article as well (and not in the article yet, but available). Safehaven86 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Ohnoitsjamie. Chase (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unchain --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR No clear nomination argument. Why can't ordinary editing fix the problems? WP:NOT is a long policy and there is no clear indication here of which parts need attention. The objection that the sources themselves don't follow Wikipedia policy is not a valid view of a reliable source, as a reliable source can have a point of view, and still be used to source an article with NPOV. Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:WEB and WP:GNG, well sourced article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a newbie to Wikipedia, with a background in music, then I recommend keeping this article. The article from the Los Angeles Times appears to meet WP:GNG FortunaMajor (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.