Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Directory

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Even if we discount the participation of Robertgombos there's no consensus to delete this article. A Traintalk 20:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Directory

Jasmine Directory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. It doesn't appear to have attracted substantial coverage in reliable sources, as required to meet

WP:NWEB. It was created by an undisclosed paid editor and since maintained by the site owner. SmartSE (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can improve The article was substantially improved by adding more reliable citations as highlighted in my last comment. I would like to improve the article using (some of) the references listed below, if I am allowed because of my COI. I won't touch any of the current statements, neither add more - since the {{request edit}} template is the proper way for doing that. I only want to know if I am allowed to backup certain statements created by other editors before the article got through the AfC process. Some of the edits proposed via two separate Edit Requests were answered and implemented. Also, ce, cleanup and NPOV addresed by independent editors and one admin. Robertgombos (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Moreover, I'd like to share my opinion on this issue. I hope you won't get bored reading the entire story, often I'm asked to shut up because I tend to talk too much. So, please accept my apologies. I have this Wikipedia account for about 5 years. As I already stated on my User page, I have been an editor at the AOL's Former ODP project DMOZ (Closed; relaunched as "Curlie"), where I'm an editor. Last year, in May, I have discovered (got a visitor or two originating from Wikipedia, saw it in Google Analytics) that there is an entry for Jasmine Directory.

After the entry was created other editors improved it and verified the sources, corrected some errors. Then, more editors came and restructured entirely the (already) published page, corrected some more errors and verified again the sources. I haven't touched the article at all. On 5 July 2017, 13:28, the article was moved to the Draft space and the {{connected contributor}} and {{notability}} tags were added to the entry. Yes, it's my standard procedure as well if I suspect something when reviewing articles.

Back then, I headed to the Teahouse section asking around on how to proceed. One of the administrators, DESiegel, on his talk page on 12:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC) said: (citing: "If you choose to declare your conflict of interest openly, on the talk page of the draft, or on your own user page, or both you may add sources to the draft. You may then ask for an AFC review of the draft. From there on things will be up to the reviewer.". I've followed entirely the COI procedure, by adding the required {{connected contributor}} to the draft's talk page as well as an extended disclosure to my User Page and the proper tag as well.[reply]

(Here is a link to the discussion).

Until that point, I haven't edited Jasmine Directory at all.

So, as I was advised to, I began working on the draft. When I finished, I used the MirC channel and requested for help from other editors to take a look and let me know if something got out of my sight. Another editor, Howicus, suggested me to remove two references and a statement. I did that too as it's visible in the edits history log.

I submitted the draft to the AfC process as DESiegel suggested "you may add sources to the draft. You may then ask for an AFC review of the draft. From there on things will be up to the reviewer" as well as per WP:COIEDIT "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;". One of the AfC reviewers, SwisterTwister, at 22:46 on 12 July 2017, reviewed and accepted the submission. Extract from the entry edit history log:

[SwisterTwister moved page Draft:Jasmine Directory to Jasmine Directory: Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission (AFCH 0.9)]

After that step, I only corrected a few punctuation errors, added four more references and corrected minor typos (I haven’t altered in any way the meaning of any phrase or statement previously approved during the AfC process.). That was all my contribution to the already checked and approved entry (and it stayed that way, I haven't touched the entry) and I consider (and I hope I’m right) that I've respected WP:PSCOI: "If there's a mistake in your article: For minor spelling, grammar, or entirely uncontentious factual corrections, fix it yourself (click Edit at the top right of the page and Save your changes). For any substantial changes, or changes that anyone might find contentious, seek input from other editors and let them decide whether to do it."

Below are some highlights from the page edits history to sustain what I've said so far. However, feel free to parse the entire history logs on the entries’ page.


  • 21:40, 10 May 2017? Julyo (talk | contribs) . . (5,835 bytes) (+132) . . (copy-editing) (undo)
  • 00:40, 11 May 2017? Julyo (talk | contribs) . . (6,187 bytes) (+352) . . (checked some references) (undo)
  • 01:14, 12 May 2017? Nsk92 (talk | contribs) . . (6,213 bytes) (+26) . . (Added tags to the page using Page Curation (orphan)) (undo)

...

  • 13:28, 5 July 2017, Justlettersandnumbers (talk | contribs) . . (8,634 bytes) (+95) . . (AFC draft (via script)) (undo)
  • 13:28, 5 July 2017, Justlettersandnumbers (talk | contribs) m . . (8,539 bytes) (0) . . (Justlettersandnumbers moved page Jasmine Directory to Draft:Jasmine Directory without leaving a redirect: Undersourced, incubate in draftspace (via script)) (undo)
  • 13:28, 5 July 2017, Justlettersandnumbers (talk | contribs) . . (8,539 bytes) (+63) . . (Added {{COI}} and {{notability}} tags to article (TW)) (undo)

...

  • 21:23, 12 July 2017, Robertgombos (talk | contribs) . . (10,414 bytes) (-2,463)? . . (Removing two statements and the related references as Howicus suggested on the IRC channel "It reads sort of like an attempt to pitch web directories to the reader".) (undo)
  • 21:35, 12 July 2017, Robertgombos (talk | contribs) . . (10,565 bytes) (+151)? . . (undo)
  • 22:04, 12 July 2017, Robertgombos (talk | contribs) . . (10,800 bytes) (+235)? . . (Fixed minor formatting and stylistic issues.) (undo)
  • 22:46, 12 July 2017, SwisterTwister (talk | contribs) m . . (10,800 bytes) (0) . . (SwisterTwister moved page Draft:Jasmine Directory to Jasmine Directory: Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission (AFCH 0.9)) (undo)
  • 00:26, 13 July 2017, Robertgombos (talk | contribs) . . (10,771 bytes) (-29)? . . (Hist meege request) (undo)
  • 04:14, 13 July 2017, Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) . . (10,733 bytes) (-38)? . . (Draft:Jasmine Directory has only one edit, and that edit is a redirect.) (undo)
  • 07:47, 13 July 2017, Robertgombos (talk | contribs) . . (10,739 bytes) (+6)? . . (minor spacing fix.) (undo)
  • 07:55, 13 July 2017, Robertgombos (talk | contribs) . . (10,735 bytes) (-4)? . . (Categories not showing correctly for some reason) (undo)
  • 19:29, 13 July 2017, Howicus (talk | contribs) . . (10,673 bytes) (-62)? . . (Removing AFC template) (undo)

...

So, basically, the article was created, moved to draft, I've placed the COI tags properly as suggested, improved the draft as proposed, suggested it via the AfC process as suggested and it was approved. I've followed strictly the WP:COIEDIT procedure and corrected some extra commas, empty spaces. And that was it.

Yesterday, the entry was AfD-ed and once again the {{COI}} and {{notability}} tags were added.

...

(cur | prev) 22:46, 30 April 2018 Smartse (talk | contribs) . . (12,839 bytes) (+430) . . (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Directory. (TW)) (undo) (cur | prev) 22:43, 30 April 2018 Smartse (talk | contribs) . . (12,409 bytes) (+59) . . (Added {{COI}} and {{notability}} tags to article (TW)) (undo)


I thought the {{COI}} issue was solved when I placed the {{connected contributor}} tag on the entry's talk page and my User page and got through the AfC process and the examination of my edits history. It seems that I was wrong...!?


As for the {{notability}} tag (an issue which during the AfC review process was reviewed), over the last year I've gathered several sources and references (some totally independent, some representing various writer's or university publication's opinion), in addition to the ones already listed ones on the article's page. In some references below, there are comprehensive full-page reviews and opinions focusing solely on the topic, in others there are only several phrases referring to the topic (I don't count on those too much).

There are a few books referencing the already live statements from the live entry, one written in Turkish and four others in Romanian.[1][2][3][4][5]

Here's a journal, as well.[6]

Other sources besides the above ones, and the several books and journals already cited on the Wikipedia existing entry, here are several sources that are not mentioned (some of them, yes, might be considered trivial mentions, however, most web directories listed under the Category:Web directories category could all easily fall under WP:WEB because a web directory is a source of mainly manually human-added resources and anyone writing about them includes a review of more than one. So, many articles, books, journals are mentioning them in various contexts providing only a few phrases about them.

There are as well several comprehensive independent reviews made by various industry influencers, independent of the subject, with a (decent to high) reputation ; however, all listed resources state no more encyclopedic information than what's already listed on Jasmine Directory or maybe some information [like the benefits of the directory] which, in my opinion might sound like advertisement (eg. very good, excellent, etc) and definitely Wikipedia it's not a good fit for that kind of subjective opinions). Here are some of the references.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]

Here are some more independent reviews by The WebDirectoryReviews.Org, as per WP:INDEPENDENT, of Jasmine Directory. The organization used to scale and rate 80-90 directories each quarter. Jasmine Directory was rated among the top 10 eight times out of eight different reviews. Unfortunately, the resource is not operating anymore; however, I managed to get some archives from the Internet Archive:

  1. Feb 3013 Review
  2. Jun 2013 Review
  3. Sep 2013 Review
  4. Nov 2013, Review
  5. Mar 2014, Review
  6. Jun 2014, Review
  7. Dec 2014, Review
  8. Sep 2015, Review

With all due respect, I consider that I have just followed the instructions given by the editors and administrators during this entire process. There is a lot to learn by reading all the policies and I am committed to further improve my editing capabilities (please see my Articles I created section from my User page).

I would like to use the {{request edit}} template to address the highlighted issue, however, I think it's wiser to deal with this Afd first given the COI related circumstances. Besides, there isn't much information that could be added to the already published statements besides various appreciations from the cited books and articles. The web based references mainly sustain what is already published on the (still) live article.

I know how COI editors are seen on Wikipedia, and if you feel like I violated any policy by following the instruction I've talked about, please feel free to express your opinions accordingly. I am very well aware of the standard procedure.

Ever since, I've improved some and created some Art related entries which you may find highlighted on my User Page. Thank you for reading this.

References

  1. ISBN 978-6059118743
    . Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  2. ISBN 978-606-26-0607-7
    .
  3. ISBN 9786061205646
    .
  4. ISBN 9786062605339
    .
  5. ISBN 978-606-26-0506-3
    .
  6. ^ Nicolae, Mirela (August 2016). "Afacerea, arta preferata a artistocratilor" [Business, the Art of Aristocrats]. Sinteza. 31. Manpres: 43–44.
  7. ^ "Reviewing Jasmine Directory". www.searchenginecolossus.com. Search Engine Colossus. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  8. ^ Summers, Kate (27 April 2018). "Get Listed: 10 Web Directories that Bring Traffic". Kikolani. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  9. ^ Muresan, Claudiu (3 November 2017). "Jasmine Directory Review". airsassociation.org. AIRS Association. Archived from the original on May 4, 2018. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  10. ^ Mattern, Jennifer (15 November 2017). "Jasmine Directory Under the Microscope". WebDirectoryList.com. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  11. ^ Saleem, Hasan (19 February 2018). "Directories Worth Considering for a Healthy Marketing Campaign". Social Implications. Retrieved 6 May 2018. In today's post, Jasmine Directory will be analyzed [...]
  12. ^ Glenn, Kelly. "Local and Business Web Directories; Academic Search Engines". h2o.law.harvard.edu. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  13. ^ "The Development of Web Directories: Jasmine Directory". www.avivadirectory.com. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  14. ^ Delonix, Kidal (19 September 2016). "Is Jasmine Directory One of the Best Google Compliant Web Directories Model?". Lera Blog. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  15. ^ Jonaely, Rosarito. "Surviving the Internet - Best Local and Business Directories in 2018". scalar.usc.edu. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  16. ^ Eaves, David. "Jasmine Directory". The SEO Company. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  17. ^ "Google Compliant Web Directories: A Review of Jasmine Directory". Quantum Books. 3 October 2016. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  18. ^ Delonix, Kidal (19 September 2016). "Best Web Directories in 2016". Lera Blog. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  19. ^ Fox, Anna (27 April 2018). "How to Start Building Your New Site Authority Using High-Traffic and Niche Web Directories". Blogging Tips. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  20. ^ Scocco, Daniel (2014). "Top 7 Web Directories for 2014". www.dailyblogtips.com. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  21. ^ Millett, Jeff (23 September 2015). "10 Best Web Directories for SEO". TheSEOWhiz.com. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  22. ^ "Web Directory Coupons, Promos, and Discounts". SBWebCenter. SBWC. 6 June 2017. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  23. ^ "Are Web Directories Still Relevant in 2017?". SBWebCenter. 23 August 2017. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  24. ^ "SEO, Marketing Still Benefit from Human Editing at Jasmine Directory". www.digitaljournal.com. Digital Journal. Retrieved 2 May 2018.
  25. ^ Collins, Jerri. "Online Searches Get Human With Web Directories". Lifewire. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  26. ^ Smarty, Ann (8 September 2014). "High-Quality Directories and How They Add Value to the Web". SEO Chat. Retrieved 1 May 2018. Category pages have lots of content beyond links. They provide 100 / 300-word review for each site (So they write the copy themselves: Neat!)
  27. ^ "25 Best Web Directories for SEO". www.netgeron.com. 15 October 2015. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  28. ^ "Directories that Follow Google Guidelines". www.htpcompany.com. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  29. ^ Jobin, John (2 April 2018). "Getting Listed In Great Web Directories". Egochi. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  30. ^ Anderson, Ken (12 February 2015). "Are Web Directories Relevant for Your Marketing Strategy?". Web Directory Digest. Retrieved 1 May 2018. [...] and Jasmine Directory, to name a few. Far from dying, these directories are gaining ground within the internet landscape, and they are quickly gaining reputation among Internet marketers, as they are high quality directories that can serve as a source of traffic for listed websites.
  31. ^ Banerjee, Souvik (19 April 2018). "The Value of Business Marketing Via Local and Business Directories". RS Web Solutions. Retrieved 1 May 2018. Established in 2009, Jasmine Directory is an online directory that's famous for its human-edited standards and high editorial discretion. Site owners have the option to suggest their sites for review after paying a fee. Nevertheless, inclusion is not promised on the off chance the suggested resources don't agree with the editorial principles.
  32. ^ Saleem, Hasan (21 November 2017). "10 Web Directories You Can Still Count on in 2018 -". The Good Men Project. Retrieved 1 May 2018. Jasmine even labels editor-chosen listings to separate those sites from ones submitted by site owners. It might not sound ideal for you as a site owner, but it actually tells visitors your site was deemed worthy of being listed alongside those top hand-picked resources.
  33. ^ Steiner, Dan (6 November 2017). "12 Awesome Directories For Promoting Your Online Business". Marketing Insider Group. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  34. ^ Gardner, Gail. "The Hidden Mystery Behind Business Guides: A Comprehensive Overview". smallbiztrends.com. Small Business Trends. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  35. ^ Joseph, Joel D. (15 September 2017). "Unintended Consequences of Trade with China". The Progressive POPULIST. 23 (16). According to Robert Gombos, owner of the well-respected Jasmine Directory, a human-edited catalogue that lists businesses topically and regionally [...]
  36. ^ Majar, Navila; Manzoor, Navid (October 2016). "Internet Information Resource Book - Guide to Search Engines, Directories, Online Archives". AIRS. 1 (1). Jasmine Directory [is n.r.] one of the top Google compliant web directories
  37. ^ "The Wee Blue Book 2015-1016, SEO Citation Annual" (PDF). Digital Impact. 8 October 2015. p. 9. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  38. ^ Todor, Dorin (24 April 2018). "Un Bookfest al Timişoarei, pentru minte şi ochi" [Timisoara's Bookfest, for mind and body] (HTML). www.banatulazi.ro (in Romanian). Timișoara, Romania: Banatul Azi. Retrieved 4 May 2018. Talking with Robert Gomboş, currently studying for his MA degree, I found out that he is co-founder of the online "Jasmine Directory", a project designed to list mainly informative and educational resources, as well as local and international businesses. The project was born in 2009 as a result of a collaboration with the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. Between 2013 and 2015, Jasmine Directory was mentioned eight times in the "Top 10 of the most notable online directories", where several directories were evaluated quarterly by industry experts.
  39. ^ James, Gareth (1 December 2017). "Authority Directory List". www.garethjames.net. Retrieved 5 May 2018. The Jasmine Directory is one of the few directories that are compliant with Google guidelines. This means the directory is human edited and not all submitted websites are added. Websites are manually reviewed following strict quality guidelines.

Notes

  1. The translations of the content for ref. #2, ref #3, ref. #4 can befound below in one of my comments to another Wikipedia user who has asked for them. The pictures with the books are located here.
  2. AIRS Association (cited at ref #9 and ref#36) is a non-profit professional body registered in the province of Ontario, Canada. AIRS is a self-regulatory Association formed under the Charter of Associations granted by the Government of Canada. About AIRS
  3. The references listed on this page are in addition to the references listed on the actual entry page
  4. I couldn't find a suitable trans-title for the Turkish reference however I managed to translate the contextual content related to the topic of the article
  5. Not sure about this book, Google Books returns mentions in it, but the pages are restricted to view: ISBN: 9781473944046 (Claire Hewson, Carl Vogel, Dianna Laurent. (2015) Internet Research Methods, Edition 2, Pub. SAGE).
  6. Idem: ISBN: 9781473959309 (Nigel G Fielding, Raymond M Lee, Grant Blank. (2016) The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods, Pub. SAGE)
  7. Idem: ISBN: 9781473944046 (Don A. Dillman, Jolene D. Smyth, Leah Melani Christian. (2014) Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, Pub. John Wiley & Sons)
  8. A recorded TV documentary about Art MA, Ph.D graduates where I'm interviewed about my studies and how did I get to be an entrepreneur might help. I haven't included it in the citations because there are enough primary sources.

Best Wishes, Robert G. (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's certainly already far more informative than other Wikipedia articles about web directories, and I see the editor has built out the references, which makes me believe s/he is capable of fixing up the rest. ObadiahKatz (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has been through AfC which lends some credibility. Not helpful that some url links are url-access=limited without being marked as such. I think in 9781473944046 Jasmine is mentioned as part of a list, which may or may not be helpful in terms of context … again page number more helpful. Id be interested in the PacKT reference in Mastering Meteorjs Application Development for Jasmine Directory but I suspect it is at best minimal. Good faith of Robertgombos (talk · contribs) seems apparent. Because of the advertising/promotion nature of some of the references … and because that it somewhat about what the subject of the article is about … and because some may be bloggy … things are a harder call. Would like translations of the foreign books. I cant decide between a weak keep and a weak delete at the moment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that while we have and extensive list of citations I guess we'd probably want pointing at the 'top 5' as those are probably the most important.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    offline sources available in libraries. Definitely, I want to provide translations of every cited page from those books however, it will take some time because in order have the right to reproduce even a part from a copyrighted material it's prohibited and, I need legalized approvals from the publisher(s) and/or author(s). However, I'll do my best. If I succeed, I'll scan/photograph the legalized translations here or on the article's talk page but we need to pay attention because everything that's uploaded falls under CC-BY-SA as per Wikimedia Foundation's Addendum 2009-06-30. For example, in Low-key photography, an article I created some months ago, I used only photographs taken by me (Yousuf Karsh's portrait of Winston Churchill is an exception, thou). iii) yes, I agree with you on the advertising/promotion nature of some of the references, this is an aspect I don't like either but the vast majority of citations backing-up any web directory tend to use sometimes superlatives). Still, "one of the better ones" sounds way more better than a superlative like "the best", isnt't it? There isn't "the best" hamburger but we might say "I had a better hamburger at X-store compared to the one I had at Y-store". But that's another story about editorial discretion and, perhaps, decency of the last decade's mass media. Regards. Robert G. (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - I've just edited the article emphasize search engine optimization (SEO) as the quality of the directory listing as recognized by Google Search is likely the key of article survival in my opinion. I moved around the article, people are welcome to correct, revert, modify and improve. I haven't redone any of the rest of the content but note the ranking rationale is not linked to an explanation article in Wikipedia. Despite the edit I remain on the fence, but felt a little sorry for the article insofar as the user who dealt with this at AfC appears to have picked up a ban and is ineligible to comment so thought I'd try an article contribution.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Djm-leighpark: thank you for the edits. Much appreciated. There are a few more references (#9, #13, #20, #23, #27, #35) that I highlighted in my really looong (more like an essay) comment that backup your edit. Matt Cutts, the former head of the web spam team at Google addressed this enigma as well. Back in the day, he suggested (indirectly, thou) that Google view listings in directories which "tend to exercise editorial discretion" as a valued citation. See his video. Anyway, in my opinion, the primary role of a directory is to list valuable resources. And that's where the entire editorial discretion and human-edited stuff pop in.Robert G. (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Djm-leighpark: and anyone alse who'd like to take a look: I've just uploaded scans of pp.73-74 (belonging to ref #2, cited in the extended content) to my Flickr account. The irrelevant content has been strikethrough with a pencil (it's lame, I know) to stay away of any copyright issues. Here's the translation you've asked for: Jasmine Directory was launched in 2009 by two Romanian-Hungarian entrepreneurs as the result of a project at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BMA). This catalog (n.r. directory, see below the note) has fewer categories but offers more tools to business marketing. Thus, businesses can add their physical address based on which an interactive map is generated showing the location of those companies. This directory charges a fee as well however, the specified terms and conditions promis a refund if a particular firm doesn't meet the conditions to be accepted for listing. The objective human intervention in structuring these catalogs (this phrase refers to all directories the author wrote about) adds credibility to listed businesses, which, to some extent, positively contributes to the perception of companies by potential clients. Note the Romanian word "catalog" derives from fr. catalogue, lat. catalogus. In English (as far as I know) it's "directory","catalogue" or "catalog" depending by the context the word is used in and/or by country. I'll do my best to post the rest of the scans or/and translations, as I promised however, the AfD will last only two more days or so, I believe. Cheers, Robert G. (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to mention another (primary) reference, an article in a regional news website. This is the link). I added the reference to the extended reference list from within the extended content. It's the ref. #37. The translated version is added as quotation. Thanks, Robert G. (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    WP:GNG issue to some extent. So, Reference #1 is browsable on Google Books[1]. Aside from describing DMOZ submission process, on page 113 he lists the most important directories and states, referring to them, that it is useful to check the index status of each directory. On Page 114, after the directories list, he advised his readers to analyze each directory before suggesting their sites to them. That is all from this reference. Reference #2: see the translation in my previous comment (the section with "I've just uploaded scans of pp.73-74"). Reference #3: translation of the second paragraph: Other web directories, such as Best of the Web (1994), Starting Point (1995), JoeAnt (2001), Ezilon (2002), or Jasmine Directory (2009), because of a limited finances, aren't as popular (n.r. as Yahoo'! Directory - deductible from the 3rd paragraph), and this may change how webmaster's perceive these directories. According to a study conducted on a group of advertising agencies/webmasters, 72% of them prefer web directories which use a high editorial discretion. For example, a domestic web directory, Jasmine Directory, was created and launched in the spring of 2009 using European non-reimbursable funds for young graduates (SEAP funding). Until now (2013), the directory managed to absorb/add/get about 4200 resources, of which only 0.3% are domestic. (n.r. Romanian) Out of the 26 domestic websites (found in the Regional subcategory), only two belong to private businesses; the other 24 which are labeled with an EP mark, aka. "Editors Pick", were added manually. (again, this is the author's statement). The author interpreted the study; in his opinion there are two reasons for its results: businesses based in underdeveloped countries and Jasmine Directory's high editorial discretion. Reference #4: The author described various marketing strategies. In the 4th paragraph, he mentioned: Web Directory Marketing - a company can add its website to various online directories to advertise and enhance its image in the online environment. Google has penalized many "spam" directories and advised webmasters to use directories that are objective in reviewing and accepting websites. DMOZ, BOTW, Jasmine Directory, and DirJournal are directories that have one or more editors, use a strict selection, and thus comply with Google's anti-spam rules; therefore, these directories are useful in the SEO process because they offer valid citations (6). Apart from DMOZ, which is free of charge, all of the above mentioned directories charge a review fee. If further translation is needed, let me know. Thanks! Robert G. (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. I have personally edit-battled company representatives trying to rewrite history / redefine reality to benefit their businesses, e.g. on The Smiley Company and Emoticon. I don't see Robert Gombos' involvement in the Jasmine Directory article as being remotely in that category, despite his vested interest (and the fact that businesses can pay for Jasmine listings). I feel he's done the right things by declaring his possible COI, and not editing the article to make it into a marketing pamphlet. I see enough mentions of Jasmine Directory in apparently trustworthy sources for it to be considered notable. The "stamp of approval" from Google is also significant given the penalizing they reportedly do to web directories that they feel are trying to game the system.

    And given the decline in popularity and awareness of web directories since the old Yahoo! days, and the recent efforts of projects like Curlie to try to make them relevant again to the "Why not just Google it?" crowd, I think there's value in documenting a web directory that's well-organized, has listings of reasonable quality, and has received recognition from apparently disinterested third parties. And since "Wikipedia is not a directory", I think the standard for inclusion of articles documenting sites that are web directories needs to correspondingly be a bit on the lenient side. Except in the case of pages created for malicious purposes, I never agree with deletion being in the best interest of Wikipedia. Tag / change / remove questionable content by all means, but deleting pages and their history of edits and discussion merely increases entropy in the universe to no meaningful benefit, IMHO. --Dan Harkless (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:MUSTBESOURCES i.e. not a valid argument. Not sure whether you noticed but it wasn't founded until 2009 so it's not as if it was in the '90s when most coverage was still offline. SmartSE (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
And something else... "Undisclosed paid editor"... Who? I personally edited this article at one time and no one gave me any money to do this. I'm not that lucky (sarcasm). But if you accuse somebody of something, come with evidence. Have a nice day. PS: I saw Bilby's statement on the talk page, but where's the evidence, a link, something?... – Alexandru M. (talk · contribs), 27 May 2018, 10:47 (EEST)
  • Final thoughts - As an ending note to this AfD discussion I just want to add:
  1. This article went live after an AfC and NPP process as per COI requirements by two different editors.
  2. The fact that I am the owner of this directory was disclosed on my username page, talk page of the article as per requirements.
  3. During the AfD: ce and cleanup, NPOV improvement by an admin.
  4. During the AfD: more cleanup by another editor
  5. During the AfD: ref improvement by another editor
  6. During the AfD: further improving accuracy, adding mixed reviews, new, more reliable references (some of the below ones) performed by two different editors as a result of two different Edit Requests.
  7. The live version of the article reflets all these improvements/changes and since everything was performed by independent editors/admins (during this 1 month old AfD) as per any/all of Wikipedia's policies I do not think that the page may be considered as being "maintained" by me.
  8. I never pinpointed to other web directories refs because I am a civilised discussion militant, however, if industry specific coverage is an issue than we should AfD all web directory related articles based on their refs.
  9. The topic has a
    WP:RELIABLE
    .
  10. In regard of the single Delete vote (Djm-leighpark's) justified by "I remain on delete... basically to clear the edit the edit summary comments", well, everyone is free to leave whatever edit summary comment considers it suitable as long as follows WP's policies and I don't think any article should be deleted to clear the edit summary. I suppose an admin can delete edit summaries if it's really needed, but I don't think that this is the case.

A. Some of these references were added via the Edit Request procedure. Some of the sources that cross the threshold into significant coverage, even if they don't give Jasmine the primary coverage: Daily News Egypt, The London Economic, TNT Magazine, Pak Wired News, CifNews - popular Chinese news, Small Business Trends, Search Engine Watch, The Good Men Project, Banatul Azi, SB Web Center, Kikolani, Authority Directory List, Blogging Tips, Lifewire, SEO Chat, Creative Minds, Seo Chat 2nd, Daily Blog Tips 2nd, Web Confs, Web Directory Digest - 1st, Web Directory Digest - 2nd, Successful Blog, Digital Journal PR, İbrahim Kavaklı. ADIM ADIM SEO, p. 113-114, 2018.

ISBN 9781118445112
- assesd as passing mention and removed.

B. Some of the full coverage references (please note that these publications/websites are industry specific ones). Some of them were added via the Edit Request procedures: Feb 3013 review by Web Directory Reviews.org, Jun 2013 review by Web Directory Reviews.org, Sep 2013 review by Web Directory Reviews.org, Nov 2013 review by Web Directory Reviews.org, Mar 2014 review by Web Directory Reviews.org, Jun 2014 review by Web Directory Reviews.org, Dec 2014 review by Web Directory Reviews.org, Sep 2014 review by Web Directory Reviews.org, Interview, Quantum Books, Search Engine Colossus, The SEO Company, Addme, AIRS (a self-regulatory Association formed under the Charter of Associations granted by the Government of Canada), Social Implications, Web Directory List.

Finally, I want to thank you all for participating to this AfD. Anyone may check my activity so far, which I think it proves that I'm not on Wikipedia to any web directory related articles, patrolling articles, and creating/improving art related topics being my main activity. Thanks! Robertgombos (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jasmine_Directory&oldid=924691701"