Talk:Pownce
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organisations: | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I am undeleting Pownce in the name of common sense. There was an era in Wikipedia when a web site detailed in Business Week [1], started by a prominent Internet entrepreneur, and widely spoken about on the Internet would be more than ample notability to be included. So I am making this stand in the spirit of Wikipedia, for its original roots, for its community values and the triumph of rational thought over mindless A7, G11 and DRV nonesense. I claim this article back in the grand tradition of the wiki. I hope you will join me. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Seconded. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Third. I was hoping my redirect recreation would have led to this. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The article was missing any assertion of notability, the Kevin Rose link in the beginning paragraph isn't enough. To take this out of CSD-land, I've added a bare-bones assertion regarding media coverage, but it could easily be replaced by something written by a better wordsmith than I. What I put in was a basic maintenance patch at best, by my reckoning. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- There was a time that it was enough... verifiable, notable because of its founder and press coverage. What else does one need? The founders of Kazaa and Skype were famous after they created those sites. Joost was created by the same folks. Joost has an article, as it should. The same pattern is emerging here with Kevin Rose and Revision3, Digg.com and Pownce. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly support this undeletion. Someone searching for "Pownce" would clearly not be better off finding a blank page; deleting this would not improve Wikipedia. --L33tminion (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This has been put up to be speedily deleted again - and there's no tag on the actual article saying so. Anyway, the reasons it shouldn't be deleted are all up there - "a web site detailed in Business Week...started by a prominent Internet entrepreneur" Alexlmuller 08:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please explain what this web site is about, what exactly you can do there? How does one share messages and links with friends?
- I see a BusinessWeek article about Kevin Rose, which also happens to mention that his next project after Digg is Pownce, but the article isn't about Pownce. I met the name of this website on a couple of mailing lists where people wrote "I don't use this, but I've got some invites if anybody wants them". I still haven't heard anybody who actually uses the site, and the current WP article doesn't tell me what the site does. Perhaps "Pownce" should be a paragraph in the Wikipedia article about Kevin Rose, just like BusinessWeek did it. --LA2 00:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the previous questions. I do not understand what the value of Pownce is at all. What is the value? -- Epetrone 11:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fortunately, that question ("What is its value?") is not relevant. All that is relevant is whether it is notable (significant) and verifiable (sourced). We have, for example, an article about Pet rock, yet we do not make value judgments about its value to society. It was a silly fad, but it had an impact, and it made a guy rich, and we still refer to it as a peculiar and odd phenomenon that people reference all the time. "What is the value" is not in any policy or guideline I'm aware of. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't think Epetrone is saying "What is its value? This article should be deleted!" I think Epetrone is saying "What is its value? Could someone expand the article so I have some idea what the heck Pownce is about?" Given the article's storied history (do all articles have storied histories, by definition?) I can understand your initial interpretation. -- JayLevitt 00:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree: the question "What is its value?" should not be answered by an Encyclopedia. Instead, it should provide enough information that everybody can answer that question for her/himself. --Dscho 15:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
