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 delete. slakr^\ talk / 13:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YouNow[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

almost no evidence of any possible importance. The references are essentially just notices. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep: TechCrunch and AllThingsD are highly regarded publications, owned by AOL and the Wall Street Journal respectively. The conferences they sponsor are two of the most well known for emerging tech companies. They are invitation only, meaning that companies that present there are considered significant, worthy of showcasing to technology heavyweights. The AllThingsD reference includes a 14 minute video of YouNow presenting to the audience along with an article that discusses YouNow at some length. Skeats111 ( talk ) 31 January 2014 —Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no substantive coverage, and Skeats' well-intentioned argument is a violation of WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:There are stories from TechCruch and AllThingsD. That looks like some substantive coverage, even if a third source might be preferred for the "multiple sources" requirement. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this, so please help me. I looked at the WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS page, but i do not know which of the violations I'm using. If the article needs a third source, I can certainly find one. Is that the only thing missing? Thanks. Skeats111 ( talk ) 7 February 2014 —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Citations are all to Youtube pages, and the article appears to be purely promotional at best. BlitzGreg (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reason I chose the two YouTube citations is to show how well known YouTube celebrities have adopted YouNow as their "live" platform. For example, Jack_Harries has 3.2 million subscribers on YouTube, is notable enough to merit his own WIkipedia page, and has chosen to use YouNow. Dan_Howell, another YouTube vlogger, has 3.1 million subscribers and is considered signficant enough to have his own Wiki page. He too has chosen to be associated with YouNow for his live broadcasts. Also, YouNow bought a competitor BlogTV, that was considered significant enough to have its own page. Skeats111 ( talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 13:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia has a BlogTV page. If you type blogtv.com, you reach YouNow. Is it a good idea to keep BlogTV on WP but remove Younow?

More references http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=171253 http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/09/younowcom-mixes-live-web-performance-with-instant-death.html http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/-1767714.htm Wesakgilda (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (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.