Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post.news (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Post.news
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NCORP. Early stage startup. Copied from draft/no review. No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND.  scope_creep Talk  10:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Much too soon, hardly any coverage of any kind found. Can revisit perhaps in a year to see notability potential. Oaktree b (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify The article has several sources with significant coverage, but this may be too soon for the mainspace. I find it hard to believe that this site does not meet NCORP. With improvements, the article should be ready to go soon. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC) Keep per Sdkb. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Its been moved out draft this morning. Its virtually identical to the previous article that was deleted with a very strong consensus about 28 days ago.   scope_creep Talk  16:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is plainly false. The article had all of two news sources when it went through the prior AfD; it now has eight, including two of the three I cited below as the strongest ones. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant sourcing was added after the prior AfD, and further sourcing was added after Scope Creep's (imo inappropriate) AfC decline. The topic unquestionably passes even the heightened WP:NCORP standard at this point. In particular, The Wrap 900-word explainer is clearly long enough to constitute SIGCOV even by NCORP standards and includes critical commentary not just regurgitating a press release. The Times of Israel 900-word article is similar. Lastly, Nieman Lab's analysis is even more in-depth, at 2000 words, and includes criticism (e.g. "There are a few questionable statements here...") that establishes clear independence. There are several other good sources from which to take your pick if you don't like any of those. The article is currently short, but lacking other issues that is no justification for draftifying, which should be done only when a page isn't yet suitable for mainspace. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Lets examine the references:
 * Ref 1 Company ref.
 * Ref 2 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Funding news.
 * Ref 3 "“Remember when social media was fun, introduced you to big ideas and cool people, and actually made you smarter?” the website’s description reads. “Remember when it didn’t waste your time and make you angry or sad? When you could disagree with someone without being threatened or insulted? We want to bring that back with Post.” Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Ref 4 Fails WP:ORGIND. Content drawn exclusively from the company website and the company director.
 * Ref 5 Low-quality Techcrunch. Fails WP:ORGIND. Content drawn from the website.
 * Ref 6  "“We want to allow you to read premium news from multiple publishers,” Bardin wrote in a post on Sunday. " Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Ref 7 Fails WP:ORGIND. Drawn from the twitter feed.
 * Ref 8 Fails WP:ORGIND. Content drawn from the website, twitter and the director.
 * Ref 9 ] Fails WP:ORGIND. Content drawn from twitter, the director and the website and press-releases.

Not a single reference on the brand-new company that has not realised a product. It is a hype and PR and a press-release. All the coverage, as they're is nothing else, is from the website, twitter and director. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS   scope_creep Talk  06:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Accusing Nieman Lab (one of the two most-respected American journalism trade publications, alongside CJR) of lacking independence in a 2000-word analysis that includes direct criticism just because it quotes the company's founder is an, um, bold move on your part. Ditto for others. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This company has not even a launched a product yet. All the coverage here from the company. It is quoted either from press-release, company PR, folk in the company giving interviews or content taken from the company website or company directors. None of it independent. And none of it satisfies WP:SIRS.  scope_creep Talk  11:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All the coverage here [is] from the company. What part of the company are the four paragraphs in the Nieman Lab analysis that begin "there are several questionable statements here" from? Direct criticism like that is the textbook example of a WP:ORGIND pass given that it include[s] original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
 * Your assertion that Post "has not even launched a product yet" is both immaterial to notability (which is supposed to be judged solely by coverage in reliable sources rather than your personal view about how likely a company is to succeed) and misleading given that Post has launched its site (albeit in beta form) and claims to have more than 65,000 users. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 09:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉  (HAPPY 2023) 15:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The Sources provided by Sdkb are not significant. And per previous AFD. Gothamk (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Soft Delete – It's verifiable but I feel not notable yet, basically a "garage band" of a company. It's a garage band whose front man has an impressive resume, some good VC backing, and a well-timed beta release when everyone is talking about the sudden changes in climate and leadership at Twitter, but notability is not inherited and it's still in the "garage band" stage of good intentions. (This said: there have been meaningful articles about companies that hadn't launched products yet, based on coverage and the zeitgeist. Greenwood_(bank) got a lot of steam during the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, even though it didn't even start making a dent in its wait list until earlier this year.) I'd say to give it a few months, and expand and rebuild the article if it picks up, especially if it starts getting more mainstream coverage. It might just end up as a well-funded DeadJournal-level footnote to Twitter's Livejournal. –Mockingbus (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability more than established via sources. // Gargaj (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources among the 9 currently in the article to establish WP:N already in the article. There is no valid reason to delete this.Jacona (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete as per User:Scope_creep's source analysis. RPSkokie (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's simply WP:TOOSOON; as of today, the company is 49 days old. It has talked a good talk about its potential as an alternative to Twitter and Mastodon, but has yet to fully prove that the initial flurry of interest from new users is anything more than that. Revisit possible creation of an article once the company has something more to show in terms of actual results as well as coverage. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:RSBREAKING of the announcement of a new company does not meet WP:GNG, since it fails the "significant coverage" criteria; these articles do not address the topic in detail (GNG), because no such details exist. WP:RSBREAKING are also usually treated as primary sources, so this also fails the 4th criteria of WP:GNG, secondary coverage. DFlhb (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - I do have to agree with Sdkb on this source; though it has small bits that maybe aren't derived independently, I think that enough of it is an independent source, and there's significant coverage of this article's subject in it. However, my opinion of that source is the lone exception to scope creep's breakdown above. Articles require multiple of such sources, and even with searching online for additional sources this is the only one that meets that standard. Still WP:TOOSOON. - Aoidh (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: I've just added some additional sourcing. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The editor has added a 1 paywalled ref "3 things pr pros know about post". This is indicative of very-early stage coverage and is not significant per WP:SIRS. The 2nd ref is an Apple Podcast where Waze CEO Noam Bardin comes into the studio to discuss the product. This fails WP:ORGIND as its an interview with the founder.    scope_creep Talk  11:48, 5 January 2023 (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.