Talk:Frank (website)

Rephrasing of the term “social networking service”

This is being described as a social networking service, yet it doesn’t fit the definition in Wikipedia itself.

I suggest the wording be changed to “marketed and promoted as a social networking service“ so It is more accurately described, rather than misrepresenting it as a social networking service.

It is not designed for people to share information, but rather as a broadcast medium for a certain ideology, and it is not currently functioning as advertised either.

Wikipedia: “A social networking service (also social networking site or social media) is an online platform which people use to build social networks or social relationships with other people who share similar personal or career interests, activities, backgrounds or real-life connections.[1][2]” Rmanke (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I have adjusted the lead to reflect that it is certainly a website, and intends to be a social networking service, but at the moment is not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The lead should reflect the sources provided. If sources overwhelmingly call it a "social network", then the lead should reflect that. Throast (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Selecting the term we use on Wikipedia based on the words used by sources pre-launch doesn't make sense, it would be similar to writing about the dates of the 2020 Olympic summer games based on sources published before it was postponed. How many of the sources did use the term about the not-yet-lauched service to describe what was anticipated, and how many of them have described the post-lauch web site as a social network? - Tournesol (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Some describe it as a website or platform ([1]), some call it a website that will be a social network ([2], [3]), some describe it as a social networking service ([4], [5], etc.), and one says it has no social networking features ([6]). That was what I based my change upon. I think Tournesol is correct that a lot of sources are calling it a social media site based on how Lindell has pitched it, and how it was described pre-launch. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

In light of the continued nonexistence of social features and no firm timetable for introducing them, I’ve retitled the page to “Frank (website).” White 720 (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Site development costs

The page currently states "which he has reportedly spent millions of dollars developing". As far as I can tell, the only sources for this are well known media quoting a single statement by Mike Lindell himself. Does this qualify as "reportedly"? --Isitfrank (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. I've reworded it to be clearer it's his claim, and I also moved it out of the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

May launch?

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

Lindell told Newsmax on 4/26 that he intends to have Frank “fully operational” by May (May 1 is this coming Saturday). I tried adding this info but Newsmax isn’t considered a reliable source. Be on the lookout for other mentions in more reliable media. https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/lindell-twitter-trump-mypillow/2021/04/26/id/1019078/ White 720 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It is clear they are in the process of installing Open Social on their live production servers today, in what seems a mea-culpa to their unsuccessful in-house efforts, so it seems unlikely they'll be ready by Saturday. --Isitfrank (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Could we all please stop gazing into our WP:CRYSTALBALLS and only report things that have actually happened, not things that somebody has promised will happen in the future? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

How did you know that it was Open Social that they're using? Might be worth including if there's a reliable source saying so. White 720 (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Their own website said it was using Open Social, intermittently, at the points where things were functioning, thought I don't think that's relevant information for the article, except that it points to this all being vaporware, and not a real social media site. --Isitfrank (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for coverage of the site's technology if and when it actually launches. White 720 (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Why does coverage of a website's technology matter? That doesn't sound relevant outside of tech journalism. --Isitfrank (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Does Frank actually pass notability standards yet?

I read through the deletion discussion, which was withdrawn by its nominator, but if the discussion was ongoing I'd honestly !vote to take it out of mainspace. The website "launched," but there's nothing to it. It's a social media website with no social media features. It's just Lindell's podcast & a bunch of op-eds. It's functionally a conservative outlet/blog right now, but that's certainly not what it's branding itself as & the sources don't treat it as one. All of this is to say that the existing secondary coverage of it has nothing to do with the website itself - just that it had a rocky launch.

Most of the sources are primarily about Mike Lindell himself, which by my understanding of WP:WEB means that these sources do not demonstrate notability independent from him. Some of the keep !votes in that discussion mentioned Lindell's attempts at overturning the election results, but Frank being owned by a notable person does not mean that Frank inherits his notability (WP:INHERITWEB).

In summary: the article feels a bit premature; there's still not really anything to the website yet, and notability still seems questionable. I'd personally recommend merging the most important bits into Mike Lindell and forking the rest into a draft. We don't know when or if the website will ever be more than a brief blip in the news cycle. Maybe it'll be a functioning social media platform that gets in the news for attaining a high active userbase, but there's also the possibility that it'll forever be a fading memory of that one time that the news talked about how the My Pillow Guy tried making a website and it crashed. We don't have a crystal ball, so we can only judge its notability based on what we have in the present, and it's not much.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 09:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank (social network) I recommend waiting until 90 days after the previous AfD closed before considering deletion again. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

As of right now Frank is little more than "Mike Lindell's web site," but it has been promoted as if it were a standalone social network launching on May 10 (after several abortive attempts in April). There is substantial coverage that is primarily about Frank, with many quotes sourced to Lindell, as Lindell is logically the primary point of contact for press inquiries. Agree that we should reconsider deletion if, in time, Frank continues not to be used for user-generated content as promised. White 720 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

In response to both Guy Macon and White 720, that is fair. We can re-evaluate in a few months.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It might be fair to re-evaluate sooner. There is supposed to be a new launch, due to the failed earlier launch, on May 10th. If this makes the news multiple times for product launches and none of them actually happen (vaporware), it seems like relevant information: https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/04/30/mypillow-ceo-on-his-new-site-frank-and-the-4-things-you-cant-say-on-it/ --Isitfrank (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I do think 90 days might be a bit much. I'm more used to seeing 60 day wait periods, and I've seen quicker overturning of consensuses than that. The previous deletion nomination had only a handful of !votes (and only about half of them were policy-related) so I'd have no issue with starting a fresh discussion after waiting at least a month (30-60 days should be appropriate). If a month goes by without any new substantial coverage of the topic (and especially if the website still lacks any basic social networking functionality), then chances are it's an example of vaporware as you put it. On the flipside, if it does become a sort of alt-tech social media platform, and makes news for reasons unrelated to Mike Lindell himself, then I'd likely support keeping the article as-is. Cheers,  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, 60 days is not enough time to hire someone competent and have them build a social network website -- which is what Lindell will have to do. I would vote against deletion if an AfD was attempted that soon, and would encourage others to do the same. 90 days is a reasonable time to see whether Lindell has the brains to realize the mess he is in and the money to fix it.

• Coding experts tell Salon Mike Lindell's botched social site was doomed to fail --Salon
• 'Not even student work': IT experts snicker at MyPillow guy's flailing 'free speech' site Daly Kos
• The social media site started by the MyPillow guy is apparently a security dumpster fire -Know Techie

I am no fan of Lindell, but we should not treat Lindell any differently from anyone else just because we don't like his opinions. It would not be unusual for someone who sells pillows to be sold a bill of goods by incompetent software developers and have to start over. --Guy Macon (talk)

Lindell in the pre-launch video for Frank claimed that the site had been in development for four years and had cost millions of dollars. So far it looks very much like a previously built Drupal site without a social plugin. White 720 (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't support deletion either, as I mentioned I think merging into his biographical article & forking the current article into draftspace seems appropriate. I personally think it would be a little odd to keep it as a standalone article until after Lindell has had enough time to finish it (though if White 720 is correct, then he has had more than enough time) as it would make more sense to have an article about the website after it's completed. That's not to say that unfinished projects can never be notable enough to cover, but 30-60 days from now we should at least have a clearer picture of whether or not Frank has any enduring notability independent of Mike Lindell. If by June/July it remains the case that its only sources are about Lindell himself & how the website crashed at launch, then we can merge it into his bio and bring the article back if/when Frank ever becomes a thing. In any case, as I don't plan on starting an RfC or AfD for quite a while, I don't have much else to say. Cheers,  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 06:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)