Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cohost

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 Draftify. It's unclear to me why the nominator brought this article to AFD when they were not seeking deletion and could have moved it to Draft space themselves. Also, an article being in Draft space doesn't protect it from all criteria for speedy deletion so I'd work on removing promotional language or it could get tagged again in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cohost[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Although I am the creator of this page (which was originally located in draftspace at Draft:Cohost), it was moved to mainspace without my involvement and subsequently tagged for speedy deletion as G11. I am contesting the speedy both because I don't personally think it approaches G11 territory, and I feel this needs to be brought to a discussion so that the editors who expanded and moved the article in good faith may have a chance to weigh in. While I don't feel that the article is fit for mainspace at this time, as it does little else but describe the subject in a manner that may be interpreted as promotional (I think it's just weak owing to a lack of available substantive sources), I do not think outright deletion is the solution here- it should instead be reverted back to its original location in draftspace for further work. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 12:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 12:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 12:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging @Clumgiwajango, Blacklemon67, Twotwos, who contributed to the article and discussed its move to mainspace on the talk page, so that they may voice their opinion on the issue. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 13:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I found the draft because I was intending to write a stub article about Cohost myself. I was going to use the article from The Verge as a third-party source, as well as some of the other news articles that have been written comparing Cohost with other sites. I feel that Cohost is notable as it is one of the handful of social media websites that have been touted as "twitter alternatives" in the wake of Elon Musk's acquisition. Notability also comes from its unique art scene, as covered by that The Verge article.

Conflict of interest disclosure: I was interviewed for that The Verge article about the posts I've made on the website (I'm referred to as Blackle Mori.) I'm not otherwise affiliated with ASSC or Cohost.

I found the draft to be pretty close to how I would've written it, though I do agree some of the wording comes across as promotional, especially in the "features" section. I feel like we could remove that section entirely---I feel its notability as an emerging art scene could stand to go elsewhere, perhaps just a single sentence at the end. If we're going to reference any of Cohost's features I feel like it would be more neutral to cite/quote the reviews/opinions of reputable tech journalists.

I wouldn't mind this being moved back to draft to be worked on more, but I would like to hear the specific objections that caused it to come across as promotional and marked for speedy deletion. Blacklemon67 (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Onel5969 in case they'd like to voice their specific reasons for tagging the article as G11. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 23:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it currently reads like a promotional brochure. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of the "features" section was not sufficiently sourced, using only primary sources such as the site's own policy/how-to pages. While I don't outright oppose using primary sources to justify certain claims, I do think they were far overused there. After trimming it, the promotional issue seems somewhat solved, but there's also not much left there. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 01:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, first time for me participating in one of these so sorry if I get anything wrong. I suppose I should explain the move to mainspace as I'm the one who actually pushed the button: at the time, I did think the article could still be improved, and read as promotional in parts, but also that these improvements were unlikely to happen within a reasonable time while the article was still in draftspace, and it was at least good enough to survive as an article. Admittedly this reasoning may have been mostly impatience - and now we've ended up here, which is awkward...
Agreed with Blackle on the subject of the article content. Certainly fixable, so, on account of that I'd like to tentatively suggest keep in line with the suggestion to fix problems by editing instead of deletion at WP:ATD (and I see that silvia has helped on that I've been writing this!). I'm not strongly opposed to moving back to draftspace, but I'm not sure this is necessary, and leaving it up with the Advert tag would probably help attract attention.
Not sure it matters but I will say that I have an account on Cohost and generally like it, but have no conflict of interest beyond this (which is probably better described as a bias?). twotwos (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate in draftspace. Wait until June 2023 (a year after the public beta ended) to see how much significant coverage it gets besides the articles seen during launch. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2023 (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.