User talk:Lumpthing

Re Yoomoot - it looked to me that of the two sources cited, one was a blog and the other was essentially a wiki, which lists "15+ new sites a day" and asks users to vote on them. Neither source meets the reliability standards of WP:RS. That, plus the fact that this website is only 9 days old, indicates that it fails the notability standards of WP:WEB. If you develop more sources, please let me know. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Which source did you consider a blog and how do you do distinguish between a blog and a reliable news source? You could dismiss any online magazine or newspaper as "essentially a blog"! Which source did you consider to be a wiki and did you find the "lists 15+ sites a day" comment. I think you must be mixing that up with something else you saw. I don't see how either source fails to meet the standards of WP:RS. Lumpthing (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(2) The website was not 9 days old. The website itself is over a year old while there has been a functioning web app with a participating community for several months (I can look into the exact day if you like). All that happened 10 days ago was that the community moved from being a private invite-only one to a public open-to-all one. Even if it were only 9 days old, where in WP:WEB does it say that new websites are not notable? Lumpthing (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(3) As I said before, I do not see that the sources on the deleted page were any less reliable than the sources for Hunch (website) (that was the first similar website I thought of; I'm sure there are many other examples). The Hunch page has seven referenced sources. References 3, 4, 7 and 7 are from from hunch.com itself! Reference 5 is from a personal blog. Reference 2 is mashable.com, which is a set-up that is exactly the same as techcrunch.com, which you consider to be an unreliable source. That leaves reference 1, vator.tv, which is another tech-focused website and is MUCH smaller, less well-known and altogether less-respected than either mashable.com or techcrunch.com. Why do the Hunch (website) referenced sources meet Wikipedia's critieria while yoomoot's reference sources did not? Lumpthing (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I probably shouldn't have called thrillist.com a blog, but I can't see anything about it that indicates that it's a reliable source. The citation to techcrunch actually connects to killerstartups.com, which is the one that just lists sites and asks for votes. I've tagged hunch.com with a notability tag, although I think its founding by the founder of flickr is an assertion of notability that Yoomoot doesn't have. In general, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to debate this further, I suggest you post at Wikipedia:Deletion review. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Aha, that was a mistake. The URL should have been http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/05/17/yoomoot-wants-to-improve-the-conversation/ Lumpthing (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(2) I find no mention of the stature of a founder making a difference to the notability of website in Wikipedia's guidelines Lumpthing (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Yoomoot

A tag has been placed on Yoomoot requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]