Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omegle

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omegle

nn chat website Gaikce (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not nn at all.[1] - filelake shoe 14:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not entirely sure that a chat site with 3700 users is notable enough for a wiki article. Fol de rol troll (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't think you understand entirely what notability is. It's determined from availability of sources, not how many people use it. And if you google news search it, you get quite a few sources. Also, that's not "3700 users", that's "3700 users online at any one time". - filelake shoe 09:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:SPAM. South Bay (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is this article in any way spammy? It's not written in a promotional tone, and hasn't got tons of external links. And even if it did, there are sources, it could be rewritten. - filelake shoe 09:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not just another chat site, it's the first to not use identifiers for users - simply "You" and "Stranger". It's revolutionary! ... okay, maybe not, but it is definatly different than most if not all the others - and 3,700 users in under a month from release is quite a respectable feat on its' own., 8:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete. It was a fad that had it's time in about a weekend. There were various articles and I saw lots of hype amongst forumers but it's over now. Everyone tried it those first few days, realised how it worked, appreciated it and moved on. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 13:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It could use a little fleshing out, which I will take a stab at, but I think its significant enough to have an article. --Milowent (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what I see a are lot of "Website of the Day" type coverage. It seems to me that this puts this into the category of a news item and with it launching only recently, there's no indication that coverage will be sustained to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I understand Whpq's concern and would agree, if all these News hits were in response to a press release. However, this appears to be genuine word-of-mouth, giving the coverage a bit of extra weight. If no-one is talking about Omegle in a few months time then yes, perhaps another AfD. Marasmusine (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is substantially different from other chat sites, although the article definitely needs improvement. Kak Dela? (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2009 (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.