Poast: They are one of many websites where the webmaster allows shady stuff.  The only sources (that count) are about the leak of direct messages from this website.  JackFromWisconsin ( talk | contribs ) 04:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology , Internet ,  and Websites .  JackFromWisconsin ( talk | contribs ) 04:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , with less than a week of coverage a month ago, the related event does not seem to meet WP:PERSISTENCE , and the website itself does not meet GNG.  — siro χ o 07:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep.  The event may not be notable enough for an article, but there are reliable sources talking about the website regardless.  Many sites get hacked but the sources thought this particular site being hacked was notable enough for them to write an article about it.  The sources do talk about the site enough I think to the point where it meets GNG, but it is still iffy and undestand the viewpoint of people that think it doesn't.  Rlink2 ( talk ) 16:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per Rlink2.  The obvious counterargument to WP:PERSISTENCE for such a recent incident is WP:RAPID -- but of course both of those rather miss the mark, since this is not an article about an event. I think the better authority here is found in WP:NWEB and WP:NOTGUIDE to which it refers, according to which the question is whether we have the necessary sources to describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance . It seems to me that we have here the somewhat unusual case of a website that we are able to discuss in an encyclopedic manner because of a brief event, since that brief event (the  breach) exposed (and led to widespread discussion in reliable sources about) a significant political enterprise. -- Visviva ( talk ) 04:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My apologies.  I may have misquoted guidelines, I get the timely ones confused still.  I think the more applicable one is WP:SUSTAINED , if you have any thoughts on that.  — siro χ o 05:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oops, sorry to have missed this, didn't intend to ignore.  I usually avoid coming back to AFDs once I have said my piece, lest I get pulled in too deep.  Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability is a fair point, but is phrased in intentionally cautious terms.  On balance, I would still lean on the rationale of RAPID here, since we are just a month and half out.  (Although I'll admit, on reflection, that the speed with which any discussion of Poast faded away is rather striking.)  On a gut level it seems unlikely to me that the networks exposed here will end up being of only momentary significance, but of course that's ultimately a question that only time and reliable sources can resolve.  I would be happy with a merge if we had a good target, but I'm not seeing it here, as the relationships with Kiwifarms and Truth Social seem too attenuated to support a merger and the relevant lists don't really support this kind of coverage.  If we're back here in a year and Poast has succeeded in remaining un-discussed in any reliable sources for that time, I guess I'll switch to a weak delete.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 04:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I was going to file this RFD myself after seeing them on the Fediverse "See also". There isn't much notable about this, it's one of many thousands of fediverse instances, and the fact that they have a hate speech problem and got hacked doesn't make them particularly notable, there are plenty of fediverse with similar features, as well as a lot of fediverse instances that have gotten a lot more media coverage than this. Wesleyac ( talk ) 20:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "there are plenty of fediverse" " one of many thousands of fediverse" name one . https://fba.ryona.agency/scoreboard?blocked=50 Baratiiman ( talk ) 06:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your point is that they're the most defederated instance according to that page? I don't think that makes them notable. That list has a bunch of other instances that are similarly defederated (if not quite as much), and almost none of them seem notable enough to have an article (Gab and Pawoo are the only ones there that I think have had significant coverage in places Wikipedia cares about, and Pawoo doesn't even have its own article, just a section in the Pixiv page). Wesleyac ( talk ) 06:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . I wrote a long justification to delete, saying how I favoured keeping articles about media that can be a source on wikipedia, but could only find one reliable source (the USA Today one). Then I looked into the reliability od Daily Dot and found no consensus (better than I expected) This article seems good enough to use as a source and combined with this one that gives us enough source to make an article. I read WP:NWEB while formulating this !vote and think the existence of this article is a benefit to the project. CT55555 ( talk ) 04:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now per Rlink2 and Visviva. The events generating the existing coverage makes me think there is potential for future coverage to maintain notability and we shouldn't be too hasty in deleting it. Circle back in half a year. -- AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 11:40, 31 July 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus