Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidme


 * 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 keep. Killiondude (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Vidme

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Stillborn startup Staszek Lem (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep- there are some mentions of it in reliable sources. Here's a Forbes article: --Rusf10 (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "some" buzz about startups is always here. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Forbes "contributor" content has extremely little fact-checking or editorial oversight, if any, and is not reliable. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't trust mainstream media myself but I've known how to find a list of their investors for a long time now and Alexis Ohanian is in fact on the list and they ultimately gained over nine million in investment funds, most of which were spent frivolously as mentioned in below edit. This by no means makes the site legitimately notable however. Mattwo7 (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 23:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 23:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 23:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Premature - The delete rationale is very poor. Closing business after 3 years is not a "stillborn startup".  Vidme seems to have generated some attention as a potential independent competitorto Youtube, but Vidme seems to have generated much more attention for giving up, unable to compete with the established tech behemoths.  There is a rash of sources but I have no clue as to judge their quality.  I believe deletion is premature though. FHHedlund (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. A business is dead. There was some buzz when it was struggling. What novelty to remember it was tried to deliver beyond being "a hybrid between"? I.e., what is its encyclopedic value? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWikiConnect 02:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not exactly sure why you want it to be deleted. Is it because of notability? If so, I disagree per the references already within the article. &mdash; cnzx  05:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Not sure what is deemed to be worthy of being deleted here. Its sad that the company went into a shut down. Nevertheless, I don't see a reason to delete the page. It has encyclopedic value, it has notability of being existential as a video hosting website. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I'd argue that it has encycopedic value in the case of wanting Wikipedia to be legitimately encyclopedic but much as Vidme's staff didn't want the site to live due to frivolous spending of of startup money on things like the ever overpriced Amazon Web Services and random luxuries, the staff here at Wikipedia don't want Wikipedia to be legitimately encyclopedic. If Zippcast wasn't worth keeping around, neither is Vidme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattwo7 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 26 December 2017 (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.