Talk:Kinja (website)

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Submitted this article for deletion; I see it referenced at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E4DB1539F932A35757C0A9629C8B63 now, and I'd be willing to reconsider or revoke the PROD if there was more information on why this page would serve an encyclopediac notice. The

I was just doing research regarding the rise and fall of social media companies, and this is one of the only places that still has real information about Kinja. Kinja was meant to be a big deal, founded by two notable figures in blogging, and failed. I'm not saying that every company deserves an entry, but this particular one could be a valuable resource. Say someone is doing research on early blogging; every day more and more sources for info on early blogs, failed social startups, and etc disappear. Just because that external information is gone, doesn't mean the entry should vanish as well, if anything it should remain as a record and a resource. The page needs a bit of work, but there are still lots of people out there with knowledge of the topic. 69.204.251.74 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2009

Comment: I can't say I disagree with you there, necessarily. It would be cool if the article reflected what you said- Kinja was supposed to be a big deal, and flopped hard. Given the notability of the creators, that would certainly be scholarly in note, even as a footnote, of what not to do, or how other people have tried and failed, to learn from it. But I can't find any information on the how or why it did, otherwise I'd happily fill that information in myself. I dunno. Thoughts? Ks64q2 (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just to add the New York times reference, to my surprise I see you already found it, yet the article was tagged as lacking primary sources. I would say, that if Kinja finds way into the NYT technology section, then it deserves a record in Wiki Power.corrupts (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some improvement. There is a decade long gap. What happened with kinja between 2003 and 2013? Dtaylor05 (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are separate sources that discuss this, it's better off merged to the main Gawker article in a section about its tech  czar 22:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that, after the References section, there is an additional section called Sources, which contains one additional reference. This isn't something I am used to seeing, though I'm not sure if it is wrong to do. Any comments on this?104gli (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes done as a "Further Reading" if a valid source otherwise simply hasn't been integrated yet. -- ferret (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kinja's not really a website, is it? I think "web service" or "platform" would be more appropriate. But why not just "Kinja"? Are there other Kinjas that require dismbiguation? · rodii · 15:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, this change was kind of a drive-by edit from earlier this year. Ordinarily I would hope for some discussion here before a name change like this, but this article seems to be kind of a ghost town anyway. So I won't touch it, but I think the question of which should be the main article and, if it's not this one, what the title should be, deserves some consideration. · rodii · 15:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]