Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imo.im

:{{la|Imo.im}} ([{{fullurl:Imo.im|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imo.im}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Fails WP:RS, seems to be non-notable and fails WP:WEB. No indication of notability, [http://www.google.co.uk/news?ned=uk&hl=en&ned=uk&q=Imo.im&btnG=Search+News no relevant news hits]. PROD declined by author. — neuro^(talk) 23:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - addressed WP:WEB and non-notable and WP:RS. Entry referenced by several existing wiki entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorrrrr (talk • contribs) 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• I appreciate your work on this, but I don't think you have (and, as I said below, I don't think you can). In particular, I wouldn't call any of the sources in the article reliable; the two strongest references are [http://venturebeat.com/2008/01/11/imoim-turns-facebook-friends-into-im-friends-will-social-networks-take-over-im/] and [http://profy.com/2008/08/05/imo-im-multi-protocol-im-client-now-with-skype/], both blogs and, best I can tell, not with the reputation asked for by WP:RS (very few blogs have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy).
  The one (!) link from another wikipedia article can't transfer notability either.
  It might very well become notable down the line. The current alpha version isn't though, in my opinion. --Amalthea 05:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable, per nom. andy (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB at this point, is in no way a website "of historical significance". --Amalthea 19:32, 19 December 2008 (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.