Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kiddle

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep . RL0919 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kiddle

Resubmitted after being rejected, and rejected again. Needs deletion with salt. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace. I think this is notable. The existing references are enough. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it with the stop signs. It still needs more development, like when was it created, who founded the company and how did they partner with Google Search. Also some more details as to how the software works. Is it a web site? An add-on? An app? I would salt the moving space until the article is sufficiently useful to be approved. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like the stop signs. Your comment, Angus, are "Decline" comments. I think this page is slightly above the line where it can go to mainspace. It needs improvement, and will be improved once there. At AfD, I would !vote "keep" on the basis of the known sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's improved to where it answers the questions I listed, then yes, it could probably pass as a stub. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The stop signs are mainly to stop the disruptive editors that kept resubmitting without improvement. If someone wants to fix up the article into a stub then they should go for that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft/AfC - I believe notability is established. A rejection was definitely out of order. There are other issues, so I'm reticent to mainspace it, because it may well fail one of the other AfC review grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered, like when was it released. Who are these Kiddle editors? It appears to be an anonymous group that filters Wikipedia articles and makes its own judgement as to what is considered safe. What organizations sponsor Kiddle? It's not owned by Google. [1] I added a paragraph on how it formats the search results, but am uncomfortable about it being in mainspace because of its vague origins unless they say themselves that they wish to remain anonymous. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.