Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaiku.com


 * 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. Sr13 02:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jaiku.com

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable, for it doesn't go with WP:WEB; only one source from a blog. &mdash;esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 22:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because it lacks WP:A to satisfy WP:WEB ... a single blog entry does not satisfy WP:RS when all it says is, "I'm switching my service from Twitter to Jaiku," regardless of the notability of the blogger ... note that the article is a recreation of identical text 45 minutes after a CSD under another name (now a redirect), and this AfD is a result of the author repeatedly removing CSD tags without any comment or improvement, so it may require salting if it is deleted. &mdash; 04:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It. http://gapingvoid.com/ thought it was worth using, even if they're not blogging directly about it . . . it's not unworthy, it's just a stub. Find a way to stretch it, by all means, but it's just as notable as Twitter. Veled 03:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The criteria for notability (web) is very simple ..."1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."No one has provided any non-trivial published works that satisfy this criteria, and blogs are not acceptable as reliable sources. &mdash;72.75.73.158 03:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It. It is as petinant as Twitter, but has not yet risen to Twitter's popularity75.83.101.80 01:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It. I created the Twitter article, and there was some talk about it being not kept. Obviously, it's an important site now.  See http://news.google.com/news?q=jaiku&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn for some people talking about Jaiku.  If it's gone by the wayside in 5 years, then, yeah, it deserves to be deleted.  However, right now, it should be kept and expanded. Jmatthew3 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * BBC News article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6637865.stm Jmatthew3 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Should have remained speedily deleted. Salt this and other previously-deleted article title. -- Charlene 16:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Note that recently blanked the User Talk page for, most likely in order to hide the fact that  had initiated two CSDs on this article (under different names) on the same day. &mdash; 17:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment and Laaabaseball is still trying to remove prior warning messages from User Talk:Laaabaseball, even as I update this discussion. &mdash;68.239.79.82 17:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It. If you delete the entry now, it will just have to be added yesterday. It makes more sense to just go ahead and make the proper fixes now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelkpate (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep If deleted we might as well delete twitter too Hansonc 22:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It's gaining in popularity, as far as I can tell. WP:WEB is only a guideline; I think it's clear that the site is notable for its unique features, and the fact that it is a competitor to Twitter. MartinBrook t'' 20:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - from what I'm seeing, it's definitely getting more popular (lik Twitter) - it's worthy IMO. Tim.bounceback( review me! 14:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article pulled many web searches, with alot of tech articles and such, I think its worth keeping.--Acorn98 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.