Talk:Jyte

I don't know how many users are needed to qualify for notability, but the user community is pretty active. Granted, I'm biased, because I'm sorta addicted. Ojcit 05:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notabililty

I don't think it's a candidate for speedy deletion, since the site has been noticed by several blogs, is substantial technical effort in a number of ways, and has a rapidly growing user base. If there's a notability question, humans are free to bring it up, but I'm hoping I've satisfied at least the computers. Technorati stats are avialable here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ojcit (talk • contribs) 05:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think that any of those are valid proofs of notability. 'The site has been noticed by several blogs' is ambigious; it doesn't say how widely-read those blogs are. The amount of effort put into it also doesn't make it notable, nor does the fact that its user base is 'rapidly growing' ([[WP:NOT#CRYSTAL|Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). I think it's a definite speedy deletion candidate. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are 30,900 Google hits for "jyte -rss" (the -rss is to avoid confusion with Jyte, the feed aggrevator). That's got to count for something. — 76.210.198.8 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googlehits are an often used tool, but they generally don't hold water. The list of widely-accepted notability criteria for web-based content can be found here; note the lack of mention of googlehits. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just take this to AFD? Anon 76.210.198.8 was me, by the way. — Bcat ^{(talk • email)} 17:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]