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.
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)reply
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)reply
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. —
cnzx05:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)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.
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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. —
cnzx05:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)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.