Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RockMyRun


 * 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

RockMyRun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Company without any external references - Lots of links to their website, blog, Youtube etc.but no real evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Thanks for the heads up. External references do exist; RockMyRun has been discussed / featured in many notable publications and websites, therefore I have now replaced / included lots of secondary sources to prove notability, which should have been done the first time round. Reliable sources already in article, particularly in the 'Cultural impact and appearances in media' and 'Partners' sections, still remain. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Either none of the citations qualify as reliable secondary sources or they lack in-depth coverage of the subject. One of the books that are cited literally just says "RockMyRun" and nothing else about it. In a lot of the other cases, the coverage is extremely trivial and contain POV issues. Like the Paste Magazine link says "RockMyRun has been around for a little while, but that doesn’t mean it’s not still cool!" In no way is that either useful or acceptable. I'd consider that and the single "RockMyRun" word in the cited book as citation bombing. Since they only serve to give the false impression that broad, in-depth coverage about the subject exists when it clearly doesn't. I'm sure the other citations are more of the same. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Very biased; please take the time to carefully check all sources. You mentioned two specific sources which you claim unacceptable but none of the others as they could well be reliable. I removed one book citation (it just gives the link to the RMR website) and added the link to all four articles from The New York Times which contain features/recommendations of RMR. Although there are links to the RMR website, there are many refs which are reliable, published sources - all these notable magazines/publications (which have been used countless times on Wikipedia as reliable sources), give positive reviews of the subject. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not sure what was bias about what I said when I went out of my way to say I hadn't read the articles. Second, just because a source has been used doesn't mean it should be used. How and what it's being used for still matters. Along with other things like who is writing the article and if it contains in-depth coverage or not. For instance plastering a bunch of sources all the over the first paragraph of the "cultural impact" (whatever that means) section is not the way to use them. Sources don't just exist to name drop as a way to make something seem like it has "street cred." That's fake notability, and again, citation bombing. Just because you put the name of the source before the citation doesn't make it any less so. Reviews even by reputable sources are only as good as having in-depth coverage we can use for the article. Again, it's not just to establish street cred. Same goes for all the name dropping of music artists in the introduction. Things aren't notable by association like that and it reeks of advertising. "This app must be cool, it has music by Steve Aoki." That's not the way Wikipedia works or how article should be. As far as the articles your claiming I'm bias for judging without looking at, its on you to put the proper work into providing valid sources. It's not on everyone else to sift through the garbage to find a gym. That said, the RedBull article says "Try an app like RockMyRun, which gives you the best workout music so that you can maintain your energy while running" about the app and that's it. Again, the same none in-depth trivial crap. The EvoNexus citation doesn't really say anything and is a primary source anyway. IfixitSupport says page not found. The DeneverPost article only mentions them in passing (might be good for a single fact though, but that's it). The 12th citation is just to a New York Times search for Christ sake. Etc etc. In other words, exactly what I said the sources would be. Citation bombing of bad sources to make the product seem legitimate. Just like the crap advert name dropping in the introduction. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What's with the cherrypicking? No, the New York Times ref is a search which links to all four articles on the subject. "Things aren't notable by association like that and it reeks of advertising. "This app must be cool, it has music by Steve Aoki."" – What you mean there is the app just contains music by Steve Aoki, well that is not the reason why the artists are mentioned. Those artists actually personally provided their own work / mixes for the app which can prove Rock My World, Inc. is a known name in San Diego. It's not advertising, it's because they're notable artists affiliated with the company. RockMyRun is not some unknown obscure fitness app. ~Hiddenstranger (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your talking about with the cherry picking thing. Bad links are bad links. Blowing it off because I didnt look at everyone is a rather bad tactic. You ever think maybe your bias one because you created the article? You clearly aren't looking at it objectively and are taking this personally when you shouldn't be. Either that or no nothing about how Wikipedia works. If you did you'd know a citation to a webpages search function isnt a valid source. So, your either being extremely dishonest because your only concern is keeping the article at all costs or you just dont know how this works. Neither one is great. Either way, get rid of the 6 dead links and the 6 more primary ones. Also, see my comment below. What does the artists providing their own work mean and why aren't their any reliable secondary sources talking about it? The only songs I saw by the artists in the app are from their normal albums and the links two to the website are both primary and dead links. Claims need evidence in secondary sources. Also, there's a huge difference between "notable in San Diego" and "notable in Wikipedia." Dont confuse the two. Read the general notability guidelines. The only thing that makes something notable is none trivial coverage in secondary reliable sources. That's it. Not because Steve Aoki made a song for them which isn't proven anyway or because some people in San Diego know about them.--Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable artists involved plus sufficient media coverage. Tone of article is a little over promotional. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To bad both the links cited for the "notable artist involvement" are dead links and nothing comes up about there being a connection to them in Google search. I wonder what "created mixes for the company" means anyway. How do we know they weren't paid? Their are track listings for the artists in RockMyRun and none of the songs seems unique or specifically made for them. So I think its just more marketing spin that is already prevelant all over the rest of the article. But even if it wasn't, celeberty indoresments don't make something notable. Ultimately if you get rid of the dead links, there's like six, and the primary ones, there's like 8 of those, and the advertizing there's nothing left of the article. There is a mention in one of the articles that they recived $2 million in venture funding. So for all intents and purposes they are just a minor tech startup that a few artists did a favor for, or had nothing to do with except the company licencesed their already existing music. I highly doubt they all pro-bono created mixes for some random low rung, local startup. If they did you would think there would be coverage of it somewhere besides two dead links on their own website. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I share Wwwhatsup's view that the article's tone can be reworked to sound more neutral. There does appear to be non-trivial coverage in multiple sources that are considered and/or seem to be generally reliable: New York Times (and a shorter two-paragraph blurb here), Reuters, Engadget, PC Mag, and Yahoo! Tech.  gongshow  talk  16:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wwwhatsup and Gongshow for contributing to the discussion. And thanks for the heads up, will work on the article to make its tone more neutral. @ Adamant1, sorry, I don't really want to argue on Wikipedia, we need to keep cool. The NY Times search is the actual NYTimes.com site itself, not a search engine; I can just insert all four links in article as separate references. As for the citation of the artists, RMR seem to have changed / redirected the URL to their homepage; if you hover your cursor over the citation link in References section, you'll see the original URL (rockmyrun.com/djs.php) in which you could see all artists on that page titled "Featured DJs" complete with bio for each artist and links to all mixes they created for RMR. The links to the actual mix pages themselves have also been moved / redirected; in this case the only way to see certain mixes are to open the app itself. A search on Google does give results albeit on other websites which mention the artists but not all, eg. here, here and here. And thanks for pointing out that they received more than $2 million in funding, that is notable content worth mentioning. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's arguing about asking you to get rid of the dead links you added to the article, but whatever. I do wonder where your wish for civility was when you said I was being extremely bias though and I'm starting to think either you work the company or at least have an extremely close connection to it. Since you can't even be bothered to remove dead links and claim its arguing to point them out. Plus, to whatever degree it's written like an advertisement, which is quit a lot, is because you wrote the article that way. Whatever the case, it's pretty clear you don't actually care about the quality of the article or it meeting the notability guidelines since you still haven't dealt with the dead links or not reliable links, and just added more in the meantime that don't meet the standard of reliable secondary sources. For instance trying to pass the Apple store link as reputable. I asked if there was a reliable secondary source about artists making mixes for them. Their own website, which doesn't load, and an Apple store link that's essentially a company press release and only says "Dj-curated" music (whatever that means) isn't good enough. It needs to explain exactly what that means. Neither your provided links are secondary sources and the iTunes one is trivial. So is the techno buffalo and lbb.in articles. Neither actually says anything. Same goes for the $2 million funding thing btw. NOCORP explicitly says raised capital is trivial. So again, is there anything actually notable about the App that can found in reliable secondary sources, or is it just a bunch of primary, trivial, or dead linked crap and more claims that's its notable "because people in San Diego know about it"? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All you seem to do is ignore everything I and the other editors who voted 'keep' say then get all defensive and talk a load of negative twaddle - you don't mention any of the reliable sources with non-trivial coverage but cherrypick all the ones you claim are not reliable. You mentioned several times that you don't know the meaning of a certain word or phrase, then look it up. Their website does work; I explained in my last reply the issue. The three links I gave above was to only show that other than the RMR site itself, there are other sites that give (though limited) the names of RMR's notable DJs. Instead of trying to find every flaw in an article, you should encourage others to find ways to improve them. I see you've made it a habit to have nominated articles deleted and spark heated discussions as you've done in the past many times. And no, not only people in San Diego know about it, anyone in the world can know about it as it's an online app available worldwide with already many tens of thousands of users. I'll be removing incorrect or non-existent links. And I don't work or have any connection to the subject; it's just because I created the article; a thorough cleanup and change of tone will be done. Keep cool. Hiddenstranger (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First, I wasn't under the impression that I once a few people voted I had to keep my mouth shut about it. If so, the same could go for you and your endless grovelling about how your going to fix everything in the article eventually. Second, all I care about is getting rid of the dead links and that there are reliable, in-depth, secondary sources for the thing about artists doing mixes for the app. That's it. Outside of those two things, I could give a crap less about this. I only care about the artist thing because keeping the article seems to hinge on it and an AfD shouldn't be decided by something that's un-sourced and only briefly mentioned. Period. The main point in an AfD is critiquing the sources. In know way is that picking apart everything about the article or a "load of negative twaddle." I shouldn't be insulted like it is. This isn't an RfC where we give general feedback. Nor is it a place to have a kumbaya moment where we all get together to improve an article. That's not on me. Seriously, if the dead links where dealt with and there was reliable, in-depth secondary sources about the DJs I would have gone on to something else a long time ago. As I've said, I could really give a crap about anything else having to do with the article and I sure as hell have zero urge to deal with your contemptuous attitude any more then I already have. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So I checked the app out and in way does it have unique "mixes by DJs" as suggested in the article or by you. Its essentially just playlists that include licensed music from already existing albums. Which includes thousands of artists. In no way is that unique or notable. As it applies to any app containing music. Which is why there are reliable secondary sources about it. To suggest otherwise is miss-leading and to malign me as argumenative for pointing it out is verbally abusive at best. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh come on did you really create an account just to login to the app? They are described as mixes which is mentioned in many sources, as well as also being referred to as "playlists", but not the playlists which mean just a list of separate tracks like on Spotify; if you actually listen to a "station" as they're called, you'll find that they are nonstop mixes, mixed by DJs - that's the whole point of the app, to run or workout to mixes to enhance, motivate and boost performance - it already says that in many of the sources. As for the notable DJs, I already said above the original link no longer works (I had already removed all non-existent links from article before you edited it). All I said is I don't want to argue, we need to keep cool; that does not at all mean I maligned you in any way, while you're the one being contemptuous by saying that the same could go for me (by keeping my mouth shut) with my endless grovelling and that you couldn't really give a crap about anything I say. Also, what's this "NOCORP" you mentioned? No such WP page exists. Hiddenstranger (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. Otherwise, I wouldn't have said I so. I much rather take the five minutes to sign up for an app to figure it out then argue with you endlessly about it. From what I've seen in the app, on their site, and in reviews, "mixes" and "playlists" are used interchangeable and essentially mean the same thing. I.E. A selection of separate tracks that play in a certain order. For instance if you go http://www.rockmyrun.com/index.php?option=com_jumi&fileid=22&Itemid=107 and look at the lower right hand side there is a box that says "Latest Comments on Mixes" the top comment is about Fit Fuel Vol. 6. Which if you then open the app and search for it, it's just a regular playlist of random tracks. Maybe in a particular order that might "play none stop" (whatever that has to do with anything. All playlists play none stop), but it's no different then a normal playlist. There isn't some special section that's different from the playlists in the app where you can access "mixes"It's not done by a special DJ either. If you read their FAQ that you cited like 6 times in the article, they say "Our team of talented DJs." "Talented DJs" could mean anything and it's notable on it's own. No where on their site or in any of the reviews do they say those "talented DJs" are Steve Aoki, David Guetta, Major Lazer, or any other of the DJs that where mentioned in the article. Yes, there are songs by them in the playlists, but again that's not notable anymore then it would be with any song app. Also, doing a Google search for any of those artists and "RockMyRun mix" comes up with nothing. If David Guetta or any of the other artists had of done a unique mix for them, I guarantee it would have been mentioned somewhere. Especially on their site. No way they would just say "talented DJs" make their mixes if those where the talented DJs. You can also look at the reviews, cnet says "DJs mix playlists. Icoblog "RockMyRun, which adapts music curated by professional DJs" (Notice there it says "curated", not mixed and just calls them professionals. Plus, it's not clear what "adapts" means exactly. GetHealth seems to be the only one that mentions David Guetta etc, but they just say "DJ’s like David Guetta, Zedd, Afrojack, Major Lazer." Which isn't saying those artist did mixes, just that DJ's like them did. Plus, it's only one source anyway. PCMag, The Denver, and DP say nothing about it. Volcan Post says "DJs can now upload their music mixes on RockMyRun." If David Guetta "uploaded" a mix, then it would it be no different then him doing it on Soundcloud or any other place. It wouldn't be notable or them "doing mixes for the app." Anyway, I don't feel like I need to go through all of them. As this message is already way to long I have better things to do. Please skip the "cherrypicking" comments this time. NOCORP is WP:NCORP. I just forget add the extra O to it accidentally sometimes when I'm in a hurry. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. By the way do you think the article looks much better than before? I'm still working on it, but if you can suggest more ways for improvement, please do so. I don't know why RMR's Featured DJs page is no longer active, there was enough info there to prove that those DJs made mixes for them. Also, GetHealth says "RockMyRun works with the world's best DJs to craft mixes and playlists that react to your body. DJ's like David Guetta, Zedd, Afrojack, Major Lazer and more create running music and workout music mixes." Note it says "RockMyRun works with the world's best DJs (followed by the DJs' names) who "create running music and workout music mixes." So that makes more sense. Peace. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean, it's improving a little bit. It still sounds a lot like an advert. The fact that RMR removed the featured DJs page makes me think either it was miss-leading in the first place so they removed it because of that, or they removed the feature from the app. So the page got deleted because of that. Which would make sense due to the DJ mixes not being in the app anymore. I also saw a couple of mentions somewhere that they cut paid subscriptions to people in other countries. So, perhaps they couldn't pay to licence the mixes anymore. Whatever the case, one article mentioning it in superficial detail isn't enough to substantiate it as a fact. Especially since it's not even a feature of the app or mentioned on their site at this point. It's unfortunate you added it back to the article while the conversation was still on going. Especially at the same time you criticized me for not caring what you had to say. Which wasn't what I said btw. Generally, it's not good to edit war people like that. Your obviously suffering from a case of ownership. It's not your article just because you created it and I don't think the part about the DJ mixes should be in there, unless there is an actual source that gives in-depth details on it. Which the one you cited doesn't. Otherwise, it's trivial coverage and not substantiated by the other sources. Also, if they removed the mixes it shouldn't be mentioned as a current feature of the app. Although, either way it's not really anymore notable then it would be to have a random celebrity in a commercial for a product or anything else similar to that. Especially if they where paid for it, but even if the DJs just uploaded the music themselves. All that said, I think the conversation about it going forward should take place on the articles talk page. As this isn't really the place to have it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw, read over Notability for software. As I think it applies more then the notability guidelines for companies since it's an app.


 * Keep per Gongshow's sources; there are multiple reviews in reliable sources. The article should be improved, and has been improved during this discussion. The AfD is about notability, which I think has been established. Any further energy that people spend refuting each other should probably just go into improving the article further. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm very happy to keep it now it is improved. Rathfelder (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2020 (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.