Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vimeo

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 Speedy keep, go read the deletion guidelines next time. Dan100 (Talk) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vimeo

All I could find about this service was it mentioned as one of a choice of video upload places (ie such as YouTube or Vimeo) and one review (which I added) and an article about the creator of Vimeo being fired and putting up pictures of himself with a bong. Appears to be an entirely non notable web service. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator is advised to check Google News Archive in future. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage in multiple reliable sources (PC World, NPR, New York Times) indicates notability. — scetoaux (T|C) 20:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep VideoRanger2525 (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment so all it takes to be notable is to get your press release printed in several places? I did check Google News. This is the sort of article ABOUT Vimeo that the New York Times wrote "The entrepreneurs who have started companies like ClipShack, Vimeo, YouTube and Blip.tv are betting that as consumers discover the video abilities built into their cellphones and digital still cameras" sort of like what I said in the nomination. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 22:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So that's just the New York Times. There are several other news articles and the like that more than mention Vimeo, such as this review by PC World, and this article by USA Today. Also, it certainly has notability for being the first to have HD support. — scetoaux (T|C) 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I didn't find that one...I actually added the review from PC world to the article (as I stated in the nom) I just wanted people to actually read the content instead of taking his comment at face value. Quoted from WP:WEB

This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following:
* Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] * Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.

LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the PC World article nor the USA Today article fall under any of those categories. — scetoaux (T|C) 23:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is definitely a notable website and has numerous references in mainstream news. Gary King (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2008 (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.