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. RL0919 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outgrow.me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Website is clearly inactive. Previous nomination in 2016 conducted when website was still active. Page is an orphan. Page also is lacking information and not contributing significantly. i would claim page no longer notable. Spiralwidget (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Garber, Megan (2012-09-04). "The Afterlife of a Kickstarter Project". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.

     The article notes: "Here's one spot: Outgrow.me, a digital marketplace for projects that were successfully funded on both Kickstarter and IndieGoGo. The site sorts its contents by "Orderable" and "Pre-orderable," as well as by topic and price. And it's "fine proof," The Next Web puts it, "that the Kickstarter concept does work despite the (admittedly warranted) pessimistic coverage of crowdfunded failures." ... On the one hand, Outgrow.me is both simple and inevitable: It's a catalog fit for the Kickstarter era. It sells, like any standard catalog does, knickknacks of varying value and utility -- some junky, some fantastic, some junky and fantastic at the same time. What's interesting about it, though, is that Outgrow.me is as much about selling a production process as it is about selling products."

  2. MacManus, Christopher (2013-01-14). "Outgrow.me: Easily track success of crowdfunded projects". CNET. Archived from the original on 2020-11-24. Retrieved 2022-06-13.

     The article notes: "The new Web site Outgrow.me features a visual directory of successful crowdfunded darlings, which you can browse according to availability -- such as projects available now or those still in preorder status. Any projects currently seeking money won't even show up on the site, meaning Outgrow acts as an easy way to wade through all of the noise and buy some potentially cutting-edge products ready for prime time."

  3. Falconer, Joel (2012-09-04). "Meet Outgrow.me, the marketplace that puts completed Kickstarter projects back in the spotlight". The Next Web. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.

     The article notes: "Outgrow.me is a marketplace for Kickstarter and IndieGoGo projects that were successfully funded and are now available for purchase. Here, you can go beyond thinking about how cool it would be if something did come to market and start benefiting from all that the best of crowdfunding entails. ... The site does allow listings for projects that are successfully funded but can only be pre-ordered. We don’t know whether Outgrow.me restricts these based on the project’s level of readiness for the market, which again raises concerns about the failure of funded Kickstarter projects, but these can be filtered out quite easily right at the top of the homepage."

  4. Epstein, Zach (2012-07-18). "Outgrow.me: All the best Kickstarter projects you can buy, in one place". Boy Genius Report. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.

     The article notes: "From an iPad stylus with pinpoint accuracy and sleek desktop jelly fish tanks to customizable 3-string guitars and zero-waste batteries, Outgrow.me makes it beyond easy to see — and spend money on — the best that Kickstarter and Indiegogo have to offer."

  5. F., G. (2013-03-30). "After the crowd leaves". The Economist. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.

     The article notes: "Sam Fellig has an answer in Outgrow.me. Mr Fellig started the e-commerce site last year as a programming project, while retraining to exit his old job working with homeowners who were trying to retain their houses in the event of foreclosure. He spotted a growing problem with crowdfunded products. ... More recent campaigns have learned from earlier ones' experience and are getting much better at meeting deadlines. Outgrow.me has every chance of living up to its name."

  6. Less significant coverage:
     1. Aamoth, Doug (2013-05-01). "50 Best Websites 2013. Outgrow.me". Time. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.

        The article notes: "Outgrow.me solves that problem by featuring only Kickstarter and Indiegogo products that are either available for purchase or preorder. If it’s not on the site, it’s either not ready or it didn’t get enough funding."

     2. Dingman, Shane (2012-11-22). "Where to buy tech gifts that got Kickstarted". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.

        The article notes: "So, where's the best place to shop for those Kickstarters? Try outgrow.me. This marketplace website collects the successfully launched gear in an attractive and easy-to-navigate online store. But buyer beware, they also showcase some of those products that aren't quite out of the launch bay (such as the examples above, or the Oculus Rift 3D headset)."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Outgrow.me to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Regarding "Website is clearly inactive" and "i would claim page no longer notable", see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary.

  Regarding "Page is an orphan", per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Orphan status, this is not a policy-based reason for deletion.

  Regarding "Page also is lacking information and not contributing significantly", see Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.

  Cunard (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We have enough sources to be able to write about this – the sources Cunard has listed seem sufficient to show that it was notable once, and that's enough for inclusion, even if we're writing a historical article rather than an article about a live website. The relative lack of information also isn't a reason to delete – the page is effectively a stub, but has the potential to be expanded, and the existing information seems to be well-sourced (and even if the article never gets expanded, it's still a net positive to the wiki). So I don't think any of the nominator's arguments for deletion are valid. --ais523 17:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep: Per Cunard's great work. By the way, notability is not temporary. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2022 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.