Talk:Mashable

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Notability rationale

Before someone tags this for deletion, let me explain why I think this site is notable. So far I haven't found reliable sources which offer substantial coverage, but I think this site merits an exception to notability guidelines based on the following:

Mashable's Alexa ranking currently under 1,000; see [1]. While Alexa certainly has its inaccuracies, it grows progressively more accurate as you get to the low rankings since the sample size grows fairly large (exceptions for a few sites like Amazon which are closely tied to Alexa, and being in the top 1,000 is really outstanding.
The site has several million Google hits. Obviously the Google test isn't a great way of gauging significance, but if it were applied to applied to every Wikipedia article, this site would likely get around 1,000 times as many results as the median -- very significant IMO. A few of the first results don't seem to be about the site (might be mistaken), but if you look in the middle, it is clear that the large majority are.
Numerous Wikipedia articles reference this site already. It would benefit readers to have an article which gives them a brief summary of what it's about.

Again, I acknowledge that I haven't written an article that clearly meets WP:WEB to the letter (I think the NewsWeek link brings it close, but at best still borderline), but I think this merits an exception in the spirit of WP:IGNORE. Any help in sourcing this article would be appreciated -- it's just hard to find good sources among the ~3 million others. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Mashable is notable, but if you look at it from a pure WP policy standpoint, it's not. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the website itself but it is hard to justify an entry when it does not clearly meet the criteria for an article on here. People will have to dig harder to find reliable sources. Talktrue (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there objections to nixing this discussion? It's based on a version of the article from eight years ago (and a level of notability Mashable had eight years ago). Michaelacaulfield (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to Expand?

Just blue-sky pondering how this could be the seed of something ... what if whenever a member Mashable staff edited some relevant WikiPedia page that contribution got listed on your page? "Communicative gesture", yuh know? Community relations + substantial good. --BenTremblay (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources

The article currently doesn't have any independent sources. WP articles should be based primarily on secondary sources. Also, as above, it leads to questions about notability. It's been tagged since August. Any chance of improving it? Will Beback talk 00:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we archive this talk subject now? This seems resolved in the present version. Michaelacaulfield (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools

Is is possible that Conan's purchase of Mashable is just an April Fools' Day joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanman904 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very likely that Conan didn't actually purchase Mashable. That being said, there's nothing definitive to say that it's just a joke, so I presume the proper thing to do would just be to go along with it. — DemonicPartyHat ^talk 18:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conan announced that not now, and not ever was he CEO (http://mashable.com/2012/04/01/conan-obrien-resigns-as-mashable-ceo/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanman904 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help!!

Somehow I messed up the formatting in the "History and Growth" section. Does anyone know how to fix it? Please help!!! Dabramsdt (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the, um, interesting things about Wikipedia formatting - if you start a paragraph with a space, it will show up as a single line within a dotted box.

Like this.

It's fixed now. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 12:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"n pageviews per x"

Hi there,

i just removed the following statement in the intro :
"It receives approximately 50M pageviews per month." (with a "Citation needed" tag since March)
Their own web site has "22 million monthly unique visitors" (and "10 million social media followers", if that matters at all)
--Jerome Potts (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WTF does Mashable do?

Can somebody please explain in the introduction what Mashable actually does, without using generic boilerplate and buzzwords that could apply to any social web site on the internet? --Nbauman (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good link if anyone wants to use it to add to the intro https://www.infographicdesignteam.com/blog/the-mashable-story/ MartinezMD (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs more history, less awards copy

The present form of this article would have you believe that Mashable is an awards company that runs a digital publication on the side. The history really needs to be built out. I'm tempted to also trim the awards section substantially but I'm curious what others think. Maybe this needs to go into a table? Michaelacaulfield (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]