Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erodr


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Essentially, the comments refuting the nominator have been from sockpuppets (and hence struck), and one neutral comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Erodr

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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 Wikipedia sense. (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). Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, technically notability is not temporary - 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. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think this article ever met WP:GNG. The chosen sources – two college media, one regional booster-ish newspaper, and one national newspaper – fail to establish any national significance. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

**Agreed. Just because something is no longer considered "notable" now does not prevent it from having a Wikipedia article. In fact, just the opposite. Wikipedia 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 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! JoeLeboe (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC) *Keep There are no longer any problems with sourcing. JohaNepomuk (talk)
 * Keep The fact that it is done now doesn't make it worthy to delete. Looks well enough sourced, especially with that Vox article. Bluedude588 (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. This article has not been edited since I nominated it. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

**So what? If it's a real magazine published by a real university, it can stay. JoeLeboe (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Bluedude588, User:JohaNepomuk. To be clear, that's probably not the Vox you are thinking of. That's a minor magazine of the University of Missouri. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. To make a long story short, there are enough sources, and they are all reliable. LizzyPiez (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - Comments from the three sockpuppets above have been stricken. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. 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? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.