Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Posterous

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. There is enough consensus in seven days among non-SPA members that it can be closed as a keep JForget 23:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posterous

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Was originally going to CSD it but it doesn't fit into any of the categories. I ran a google search and found no other sources showing the site other then the site and twitter. Non-Notable. SKATER ^Speak. 04:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Wordpress has a page here: [1]; Tumblr has a page here: [2]; Twitter has a page here: [3]. It makes sense for Posterous to have a page, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.221.98.167 (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC) — 199.221.98.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That's not how it works: WP:OTHERSTUFF --Cybercobra (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Just in the top google hits are several articles going towards notability, and these are mostly just about their new iPhone app. Surely one could find more if they looked:

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.44.216 (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC) — 76.119.44.216 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Don't delete Lots of references in a search for "posterous" site:wsj.com OR site:nytimes.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.15.148 (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC) — 18.111.15.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Don't Delete Huge article and how to on Mashable [9] A company with over 1 million users should NOT have their wikipedia page deleted!!! The Austin News paper uses it to interact with their readers [10] [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fla030 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC) — Fla030 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Don't Delete Tech Cruch Article [12] Posterous Finally Has An iPhone App, Could Have Been Way Better —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.210.199.233 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont't delete There's extensive coverage in Mashable and more in Techcrunch. I think Skater may need to check his Google settings. (edit conflicts) -- Alun Salt (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be significant coverage in ComputerWorld & TechCrunch --Cybercobra (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Their media coverage is significant enough. --Dan Leveille^TALK 22:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This service is getting a lot of attention very quickly. It could likely become a major competitor to Blogger and Wordpress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.127.212 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC) — 96.42.127.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That's not how it works either (see WP:CRYSTAL), though references others have already mentioned may be sufficient to establish notability anyway. —Umofomia (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides having significant media coverage, the user base for this service is big enough and continues to grow rapidly.

--Xrecar (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC) — Xrecar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep It's clear to me that Posterous meets the requirements of notability and verifiability. Steven Walling 08:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin The "don't delete" headings might make it obvious, but please note that there has been canvassing outside Wikipedia. Steven Walling 08:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This service has been covered in multiple editorial news articles since the service was launched to the public. A google news search [13] documents coverage of posterous by major metropolitan news papers (Chicago, Minneapolis/St Paul, Belfast Ireland, Washington DC). I have seen several reviews that state posterous is one of the best current tools for blogging due to its simplicity, design and ability to integrate a posterous blog with other well respected services (flickr / facebook / twitter). Here is one such recent review. [14] Bmike8 (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2009 (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.