Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank (social network)

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. Unusual discussion, but consensus to keep is clear. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank (social network)

[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)

WP:CRYSTALBALL prediction about a possible future launch. The service has already failed to launch once[1] and lindell has announced at least other site which may or may not actually launch.[2] Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant coverage by a number of independent reliable sources per WP:GNG, some of which are already used as references on the article. Also satisfies WP:WEB criteria. The platform failing does not take away from its notability. In fact, its failed launch was widely covered by the news media, thus indicating notability. Throast (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Frank has launched although it’s overwhelmed at the moment. White 720 (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's put this AfD on hold until Wednesday to see if it actually launches. I just went to the site and it just shows a video. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds good. I was able to see a registration page earlier this morning (US PDT) but registration itself was down, as has been reported. White 720 (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears to be up now at https://vip.frankspeech.com/; registration and login both work at this domain. White 720 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems premature. The site just launched today and its early failure generated media coverage. But I was just able to register an account so maybe that problem was a blip. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does seem a little like Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and maybe even fails notablity, but it seems like from the overwhelming number of Reliable sources, and its placement in the context of Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election we should keep. Rklahn (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination based upon Liz being able to register an account. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had to see what was there! It was all columns by Trump supporters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like an abuse of AfD for political purposes. There's been tons of media coverage of "Frank" and it therefor obviously meets the criteria for a Wikipedia page regardless of whether or not it's launched. 2hip2carebear (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's launched. It's there. It's got lots of content. It's being used. Time to close this worthless AfD. 47.12.161.150 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC) — 47.12.161.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It claimes to have had 2 billion page hits in the last few days. It is relevant as historical information even if 'FankSpeech' fails later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitwise1984 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC) — Bitwise1984 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It's a social media company, it exists and has gained lots of media coverage meeting notability guidelines. A maintenance break isn't grounds for deletion. Anish631 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Anish631[reply]
Comment: The developers of this site made the claim that it has billions of page hits, but there's no reason to believe them. They (Johnston + Howse) made similar claims in 2013 about another failed launch of a social media site (http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1375572779.html). --Isitfrank (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC) — Isitfrank (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Significant coverage by reliable secondary sources establishes notability, not page hits. You could argue that they may serve as an indicator. Throast (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does have fairly significant notoriety in the news at the moment. It is not a social media site right now, however -- it is merely a clone of worldviewweekend.com and the videos they've already been hosting. That site doesn't have an article, so the only addition here is hype and marketing by Lindell. It may well become a notable site, but it isn't yet, and there are reasons to believe it won't become or remain one. --Isitfrank (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
worldviewweekend.com is not notable because it didn't receive coverage per GNG, as opposed to this. So there is no connection to draw. Current news coverage of Frank clearly indicates notability. Also, once a subject has become notable, which I argue this has, it can never cease being notable. Throast (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is notable, that's an opinion I won't argue with, but it is clearly not a social network. --Isitfrank (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frank's various iterations so far have relied on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media for social features. However, other reliable sources continue to describe it (perhaps speculatively) as a social network, and that is its stated intention. White 720 (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insignificant coverage. Trivial events, such as this one, receive the appearance of "coverage" in the current environment of low-quality content-mill journalism, reactionary to every sneeze, but have no actual staying power. Blips in the landscape are not significant coverage. Also, the social media site didn't launch at all. There's no site here. There's a webpage with a video and that's all there ever was 12.231.67.211 (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I withdrew my nomination because the reason I gave for deletion is no longer true. I am fine with whatever the closing admin decides -- close now or keep open. Please don't jump the gun. An experienced closer will come by looking at every AfD and will eventually get to this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2021 (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.