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]