Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keep (app)


 * 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 keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep (app)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable app plus undisclosed paid editing. Ninjaediator (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete — non notable app. Celestina007 (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete A non notable app. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  https://alltechasia.com/our-teamInternet Archive shows that All Tech Asia has editorial oversight.    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Keep to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)</li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per 1) sources presented later in the discussion, and 2) the article was rewritten and significantly expanded on 4 May 2020.
 * Comment: I rewrote the article. The rewrite contains more sources than the five sources I listed here. A December 2018 report published by Sootoo Institute found that there were 38.8 million downloads of Keep between July and September, making it "the most downloaded fitness app in China". China Global Television Network (CGTN) said in 2020 that "Keep, a major Chinese fitness app, may be the 'winner' during this pandemic". CGTN noted that Keep had numerous downloads during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cunard (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Just noticed this, keep per additional sources and article improvement, probably should not have been a relist given unchallenged WP:THREE sources.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete it is unfortunate that Wikipedia is being forced to advertise banal items such as mobile "apps". The information in sources is either trivial or routine. Coverage is required to go beyond number of employees, amount of revenue or raised capital, age of the company, and so on. Fails CORPDEPTH. This includes POV testimony from a customer here or there.


 * And then there is the big story recounted by the owner. He found exercise effective so he and some others developed a mobile app. So what? This also is not considered significant coverage - it is POV testimony by the founder. According to one of the December 2017 sources there were over one thousand (1000) exercise apps - probably only in China - which then excludes exercise apps available in other countries.


 * I'm thinking by now (May 2020) there are probably several thousand in China alone. In this rewritten Wikipedia article, in the History section, the first two paragraphs appear to be written as a commercial for the company, the last two paragraphs is routine business information aimed at the business sector - which is frowned upon in WP:CORPDEPTH. This article now has a chronic case of WP:REFBOMB.


 * This company has quite the PR machine behind it, which is how it has managed to have so much trivial information, as well as routine information written about it. This Wikipedia article is probably part of that PR campaign. There are no controversies that have generated significant coverage in the press, no major changes in leadership, no coverage of employee drama, and so on. Number of employees being laid off is not significant coverage. We're not a platform for advertising WP:NOTADVERTISING. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I changed my ivote to keep. There seems to be a tremendous amount of coverage pertaining to this app. And as Cunard pointed out it is one of the top three exercise apps in China. It seems with everything combined this passes the threshold for notability. I still don't like covering this topic on Wikipedia, but maybe that's another discussion for some other day. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

<ul><li>Comment: From this 2019 article in China Daily Hong Kong Edition: "According to a Sootoo Research Institute report in June, Keep is one of the top three fitness apps in China. The other two apps, Joyrun and Codoon, are focused on tracking people's running performance. In another report released in December by Sootoo, Keep was the most downloaded fitness app in China with 38.8 million downloads from July to September." Being "one of the top three fitness apps in China" and then "the most downloaded fitness app in China" strongly contributes to notability. Here are two Chinese sources I found today and have added to the article:<ol> <li> The article notes that by 2019, Keep had made over one billion sales in sporting goods and ranked fourth in the sporting goods category on the online retail website Tmall behind the Decathlon Group, Lululemon Athletica, and Yijian Running Machine. Tmall is a major Chinese online retail website that has an Alexa Traffic Rank of three behind Google and YouTube. That Keep is a top seller in the sporting goods category on Tmall strongly contributes to notability.</li> <li> The article notes (from Google Translate):

"Not long ago, Keep running wildly became the focus of everyone's attention due to the layoffs. Keep official response is normal staff optimization. But in fact, this layoff may not be normal for Keep. Some people think that this is due to Keep expanding too fast, commercialization is not successful enough, strategic mistakes, or the market environment, but in fact, for products like Keep with 200 million users and 40 million monthly users, whether it is commercialization It is still expansion, and perhaps we must return to the most basic level of user needs to discuss. ... From the perspective of user needs, not being professional and failing to become a system is one of Keep ’s biggest problems. However, on the other hand, when facing more novice users, Keep is faced with the problem of how to guide users to get used to it. ... Keep's embarrassment is obvious: it is difficult for novice users to persevere; users with basic training have more professional needs after advanced, but they can't really meet them. ... If we say that horizontal expansion is to find more possibilities for commercialization, perhaps it is the deeper cultivation of content and user experience in the vertical direction that Keep needs to overcome."

The article provides extensive analysis of Keep in explaining the deep problems it needs to overcome. This sentence is a good summary of this in-depth article: "Keep's embarrassment is obvious: it is difficult for novice users to persevere; users with basic training have more professional needs after advanced, but they can't really meet them." </li> </ol>Cunard (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Keep per . - <span style="color:RGB(0,255,128); padding:2px">Flori4nK T A L K  19:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.