Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Erodr - Knowledge

Source 📝

536:. This app might have been notable, but the article could use some more information and better sourcing. Two of the four references in the article are broken URLs, the app's official site appears to be defunct, the app is no longer available in the Google Play store as far as I can tell, and there have been no posts to the Erodr Facebook or Twitter pages for more than a year. If the app is defunct, when did it go defunct, and if it is still active, what evidence is there of that? -- 343:
Just because something is no longer considered "notable" now does not prevent it from having a Knowledge article. In fact, just the opposite. Knowledge is one of the most major ways by which future generations can learn about the past, i.e. what was TRENDY and NOTABLE back then, and so on. If we
287:- if it was sufficiently notable while in use, it remains notable now. So any arguments for deletion would have to be based on there never having been enough coverage in the first place. Do you posit that is the case? To my eyes, what's there is not particularly strong but it should do. -- 238:
I wrote this article. This social network has been dead for several years with no news outlets noting its passing. This app was huge in its day, make no mistake, but the lack of media coverage makes this non-notable in the Knowledge sense.
344:
delete this article and others on the grounds that it is no longer significant enough, then we are losing history! It would be like the Great Fire of Alexandria. And I should know; history is my college major!
207: 160: 260: 201: 107: 92: 241:
This app's founder bailed or no-showed on me more times than I can count when I tried to write up this company in the college newspaper
167: 60: 87: 80: 17: 363:
The fact that it is done now doesn't make it worthy to delete. Looks well enough sourced, especially with that Vox article.
52:. Essentially, the comments refuting the nominator have been from sockpuppets (and hence struck), and one neutral comment. 299: 492: 432: 403: 326: 248: 101: 97: 222: 505: 189: 560: 133: 128: 40: 540: 137: 488: 428: 399: 322: 244: 120: 556: 388: 368: 36: 183: 58: 537: 472: 268: 215: 179: 448: 349: 124: 543: 526: 496: 476: 452: 436: 407: 372: 353: 330: 304: 272: 252: 62: 295: 76: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
555:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
229: 35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
420: 416: 384: 364: 116: 68: 284: 53: 517: 468: 264: 444: 345: 321:
newspaper, and one national newspaper – fail to establish any national significance.
314: 289: 195: 154: 467:
To make a long story short, there are enough sources, and they are all reliable.
443:**So what? If it's a real magazine published by a real university, it can stay. 398:
Not sure what you mean. This article has not been edited since I nominated it.
318: 427:
you are thinking of. That's a minor magazine of the University of Missouri.
487:- Comments from the three sockpuppets above have been stricken. 551:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
424: 508:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
317:. The chosen sources – two college media, one regional 150: 146: 142: 214: 514:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 563:). No further edits should be made to this page. 383:There are no longer any problems with sourcing. 259:Note: This discussion has been included in the 261:list of Software-related deletion discussions 228: 8: 108:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! 258: 423:. To be clear, that's probably not the 7: 313:I don't think this article ever met 24: 93:Introduction to deletion process 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1: 497:02:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 477:23:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 453:23:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 437:22:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 408:21:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 373:21:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 354:23:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 331:02:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 305:20:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 273:08:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC) 253:06:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC) 544:18:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC) 527:12:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC) 63:16:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC) 285:notability is not temporary 83:(AfD)? Read these primers! 580: 553:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 81:Articles for deletion 479: 461: 458: 455: 392: 356: 283:Well, technically 529: 525: 489:Mark Schierbecker 463: 460: 457: 442: 429:Mark Schierbecker 400:Mark Schierbecker 378: 338: 323:Mark Schierbecker 303: 275: 245:Mark Schierbecker 98:Guide to deletion 88:How to contribute 571: 524: 522: 515: 513: 511: 509: 421:User:JohaNepomuk 417:User:Bluedude588 293: 292: 233: 232: 218: 170: 158: 140: 78: 34: 579: 578: 574: 573: 572: 570: 569: 568: 567: 561:deletion review 530: 518: 516: 504: 502: 288: 175: 166: 131: 115: 112: 75: 72: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 577: 575: 566: 565: 547: 546: 538:Metropolitan90 512: 501: 500: 499: 481: 480: 440: 439: 413: 412: 411: 410: 376: 375: 336: 335: 334: 333: 308: 307: 277: 276: 236: 235: 172: 111: 110: 105: 95: 90: 73: 71: 66: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 576: 564: 562: 558: 554: 549: 548: 545: 542: 539: 535: 532: 531: 528: 523: 521: 510: 507: 498: 494: 490: 486: 483: 482: 478: 474: 470: 466: 462: 459: 456: 454: 450: 446: 438: 434: 430: 426: 422: 418: 415: 414: 409: 405: 401: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 390: 386: 382: 374: 370: 366: 362: 359: 358: 357: 355: 351: 347: 342: 332: 328: 324: 320: 316: 312: 311: 310: 309: 306: 301: 297: 291: 286: 282: 279: 278: 274: 270: 266: 262: 257: 256: 255: 254: 250: 246: 242: 231: 227: 224: 221: 217: 213: 209: 206: 203: 200: 197: 194: 191: 188: 185: 181: 178: 177:Find sources: 173: 169: 165: 162: 156: 152: 148: 144: 139: 135: 130: 126: 122: 118: 114: 113: 109: 106: 103: 99: 96: 94: 91: 89: 86: 85: 84: 82: 77: 70: 67: 65: 64: 61: 59: 57: 56: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 552: 550: 533: 519: 503: 484: 464: 441: 380: 377: 360: 340: 337: 280: 240: 237: 225: 219: 211: 204: 198: 192: 186: 176: 163: 74: 54: 49: 47: 31: 28: 385:JohaNepomuk 365:Bluedude588 319:booster-ish 202:free images 520:Sandstein 55:Ritchie333 557:talk page 469:LizzyPiez 265:Shellwood 37:talk page 559:or in a 506:Relisted 445:JoeLeboe 346:JoeLeboe 300:contribs 161:View log 102:glossary 39:or in a 534:Comment 485:Comment 341:Agreed. 290:Elmidae 281:Comment 208:WP refs 196:scholar 134:protect 129:history 79:New to 541:(talk) 315:WP:GNG 180:Google 138:delete 50:delete 465:Keep. 223:JSTOR 184:books 168:Stats 155:views 147:watch 143:links 117:Erodr 69:Erodr 16:< 493:talk 473:talk 449:talk 433:talk 404:talk 389:talk 381:Keep 369:talk 361:Keep 350:talk 327:talk 296:talk 269:talk 249:talk 216:FENS 190:news 151:logs 125:talk 121:edit 425:Vox 243:). 230:TWL 159:– ( 495:) 475:) 451:) 435:) 419:, 406:) 391:) 371:) 352:) 339:** 329:) 298:· 271:) 263:. 251:) 210:) 153:| 149:| 145:| 141:| 136:| 132:| 127:| 123:| 491:( 471:( 447:( 431:( 402:( 387:( 379:* 367:( 348:( 325:( 302:) 294:( 267:( 247:( 239:( 234:) 226:· 220:· 212:· 205:· 199:· 193:· 187:· 182:( 174:( 171:) 164:· 157:) 119:( 104:) 100:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
talk page
deletion review
Ritchie333


16:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Erodr

Articles for deletion
How to contribute
Introduction to deletion process
Guide to deletion
glossary
Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
Erodr
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Stats
Google
books
news

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.