Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meebo


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Meebo

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Just another social messaging client. Seems to fail WP:GNG. The references suggest blogging activity, relatively high total account count (I recall registering one years ago) and substantial PR budget, but notability is unclear. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is a very widely used chat service application, mentioned in 1116 articles. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Both arguments are weak: ntoskrnl.dll is the most used software ever, should it have its article? The 1116 links (of which most are template interclusions and list entries) are also not convincing. I can link the same ntoskrnl.dll twice as more times. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No not links.....*articles* Its mentioned in 1116 articles written in various magazines and newspapers, according to the Factiva (commercial database) search. I think if an application is mentioned in more than 1000 articles, then its probably notable??????Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This subject clearly meets WP:GNG, with extensive coverage in reliable sources.  This 2007 Ars Technica story calls it "the reigning king of web-based chat which now claims over 20 million unique monthly users".  More than 1,000 GNews hits and more than 2,000 GBooks hits; and a random perusal of the first few pages turns up substantial coverage in, e.g., The New York Times, Newark Star-Ledger,  San Francisco Chronicle, TIME, Fortune/CNN, Reuters, Wired, CNET, etc., etc.   --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the WP:GOOGLEHIT argument there is a nice set of links, which (in the order of appearance) gives us: (1) trivial mention (nearly all of the Meebo-related text is cited), (2) WP:PAYWALL, (3) "New Jersey local news" (seriously?), (4) in fact discusses the idea of social messaging, not Meebo, (5) "Skype Looks to Pad Revenue with Display Ads", (6) very dubious, looks more like an advertising, (7) discusses Meebo as commercial entity, not SaaS, (8) about XAuth, not Meebo, (9) discusses Meebo bar, silent about Meebo SaaS, (10) again XAuth, not Meebo SaaS, (11) discusses Meebo for Andoid as a poorly written sub-par software (strange way to imply notability, isn't it), (12) about commercial entity's investments into another service. These references actually show the reason I nominated Meebo for deletion: there are a lot of passing mentions, a lot of articles about notability of the social messaging concept, but nearly nothing about Meebo SaaS. Though these refs are pretty convincing that the company behind Meebo is indeed notable. But not the SaaS. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, there is also WP:WEB which excludes the refs above from the set of possible notability indications. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Reviews -, , and news articles - , , . If you say that the last three sources don't show notability because they relate to the company behind it, that is odd. Meebo Inc only operates Meebo and nothing else. There is nothing wrong with combining the two to show notability because both the software and the company have significant coverage and Meebo software is their only product. The articles that mention the company mainly focuses on the success of the software. Saying that this CNET article doesn't show notability is very odd. Negative reviews show notability just like positive reviews. Significant does not mean only positive content. Look at Disaster Movie for example. None of the significant coverage are positive reviews, but it would be stupid to call the film non-notable. SL93 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You say that Meebo Inc is notable. Then why not rename the article Meebo Inc and have information about Meebo, Meebo bar, and the company in one article? SL93 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article about company should address the company and its activities. I agree that the article about Meebo Inc. (mentioning and briefly describing Meebo social messaging, Meebo bar, and that social music thing Meebo operates on another 5-latter domain) would be appropriate. Another article mentioning Meebo (and Metro from the sister AfD, and some other SM SaaSes probably) would be one about the concept of social messaging. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually like this approach: if it's buzzy, it's notable. Social network surely have some coverage, but I'm not sure that the fact someone wrote about it is really all it takes. How can something be notable if the only difference from the other products of a kind is branding-related? How is Meebo different from other social messaging services? How is it different from Metro? From Parlingo? BTW, Parlingo actually steps out due to the way it is used (Palestinian and other military activities, celebrities, etc.), but Meebo doesn't. It has a huge user base (as it claims) and it enjoyed very aggressive advertising. Is it enough for stepping out? Is there something else differentiating it from the rest of the industry? If the article about the social messaging appears, will there be something apart from branding that would be needed to be stated in the Meebo article? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "but I'm not sure that the fact someone wrote about it is really all it takes." According to WP:N, that is all it needs to take. If you have a problem with that, take it to the talk page of WP:N instead of trying to change the guideline here. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And according to WP:NSOFT it doesn't. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a failed guideline and is only an essay. SL93 (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an essay explaining the application of WP:N to software. It doesn't contradict any policy or guideline and it never failed. You might have confused it with Software notability, which indeed failed to become a guideline as it was not enough restrictive. And WP:GNG doesn't actually imply that everything that was a topic of a publication is supposed to be included. It just sets the bare minimum. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still an essay. It's surprising that you're using an essay to delete an article. That's idiotic. The notability guideline says multiple publications and there are many. And you consider yourself an inclusionist? That's nonsense. SL93 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I consider myself an inclusionist. I would like to see an article on whatever there is something to write about (ManOpen, ikiWiki, Parabola, UltraMon from the recent examples). I just see no point in including article about the SaaS that is no way different from any other of a genre. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Those comments make you a mega deletionist. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please cut this and paste to any of our talk pages. I would like to explain why I regard myself an inclusionist and still nominate some articles for AFD process in more detail if you are interested, but it is off the current topic. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, to save your nerves I stop replying here. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Rationale for nomination doesn't pass the laugh test. Meebo has upwards of 60 million users and has multiple secondary sources. The article needs to be refined, but WP:AFD is not the proper course of action for this.--WaltCip (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So we indeed need an ntoskrnl.dll article? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST.--WaltCip (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not, actually. I'm just trying to show you that the amount of users doesn't make something more notable. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But the sources above and below do show notability. SL93 (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources above and below show the notability of social messaging concept. All they show is that moving this article to Social messaging and generalizing would benefit Wikipedia. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. The sources talk about Meebo in detail. SL93 (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that the articles don't have Meebo as the main topic? Very odd that you would say that. SL93 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This article (and all the ones I listed below) covers Meebo in detail. Full stop. Goodvac (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to admit there are sources discussing Meego specifically, but my concern about lack of difference between social messaging SaaS still stands. Is there anything in Meebo that would make it at least subtly different from any other service of a kind? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with the notability guideline. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that only has to do with notability of Meebo. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:N has to do with the notability of Meebo. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly believe that this will be deleted if only you, the nominator, advocate for deletion?SL93 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I hope someone would support my position. If this article survives AFD, so be it. I do what I believe I should do. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're making up crap that is not related to guidelines and is just your personal opinion. Tell me - what guideline says that this has to have more than coverage in multiple sources? None! No one is going to support made-up crap that is not in line with guidelines and policies. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BTW, the chance that this AFD is closed as delete is somewhere between "very low" and "no chance", why do you press on me? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you annoy me. I tried explaining nicely to you that what you are saying is in no guideline or policy and you just don't seem to get it. SL93 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:WEB → Σ  τ  c . 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator's assertion that Meebo fails the GNG is utterly ludicrous and unsubstantiated. Meebo has enjoyed significant coverage in reliable sources—"Web 2.0 wonders: Meebo" from BBC, "A Week in the Valley: Meebo" from O'Reilly Radar, "Meebo Offers Tools To Embed Ad-Carrying Chat Rooms" and "Meebo Mixes Instant Messaging With Social Networking" from InformationWeek, "The next phase of instant messaging" from CNN, "Ambitious Meebo picks up partners: Offers web-based instant-messaging" from San Jose Mercury News, and "Meebo Opens Site to Developers" from The Wall Street Journal—more than enough to pass both the GNG and WP:WEB. Goodvac (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Czarkoff should stop making up rules that don't even exist. An essay getting an article deleted? That will not happen. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Adding my support to the opinions articulated above - this is a widely used service and growing business as well. Goalloverhere (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: Meets Notability_(software). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.27.209 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 17 January 2012
 * 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.