Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedRover


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

RedRover

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only 1 reference works for not very notable website Rathfelder (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete - "References not working" is not a reason for deletion. Seems to pass WP:GNG with the sources currently listed in article, *New York Times Article, *TechCrunch and *CoolMomTech.  CBS 527 Talk 15:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC) After seeing Hydromania's comments and reading the updated WP:ORGCRIT, I'm convinced with the exception of the NYT article, the other sources are not strong enough to support keeping the article.   CBS 527 Talk 03:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I dont see significant coverage, though I cant access the NYT article. I'd like to see something more than  "this site has been launched." The article itself has no significant content.Rathfelder (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The New York Times article, "Devoting Attention to a Child and a Phone, All at Once", is a 500+ word article about the RedRover App. There appears to be more than enough information in the references to expand the article.  CBS 527 Talk 23:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. After looking for sources I've found: NYTimes, TechCrunch, Digiday, and a few mentions at CoolMomTech, the latest here.
 * The NYT article and-to a lesser extent-the techcrunch article are reliable sources and count toward N. GNG/SIGCOV doesn't specify an exact number of sources necessary to pass so these two, plus the less notable Digiday and CoolMomTech sources (which seem to be closer to blogs?) might work. However WP:ORGCRIT pretty much means "apply GNG extra strictly", requiring a stronger level of independence in the sourcing (specifically calling out blogs) and in the depth of coverage (note that the newest source we have is from 2013, the rest are from 2011). That and the fact it's an out of date stub (note that according to CoolMomTech the app has significantly changed direction) tip me into Delete. Hydromania (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * oh, and the creator most definitely had a COI. see Special:Contributions/Blipus. Hydromania (talk) 06:33, 5 November 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.