Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FeedBurner


 * 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. SynergeticMaggot 21:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

FeedBurner
Non-notable and self-promoting Ich 18:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Spam BFD1  01:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article was edited by three different active users, with no issues hilighted on their talk page. I'm not quite sure I understand how this could be spam.  --Interiot 06:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Torch it Spam --Xrblsnggt 03:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Alexa rank #500, 30 million google hits , 12,000 usenet hits .  Passes WP:WEB based on mentions in Wired , CNET , Yahoo News , ... --Interiot 04:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Google is flawed, we've deleted many more notable things. Ich 05:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google "flaws" notwithstanding, there is some serious contention that this article meets WP:WEB. The searches provided by Interiot indicate a few media reports on the subject, particularly through Wired, and his recent revision of the article reflects this well. And an Alexa ranking of 500 is no small matter. -- H·G (words/works) 07:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I also have to admit that I get curious when someone claims that Google hit counts are invalid because of flaws in the search engine. The Google Test is an established, largely reliable tool for AfD discussions and, when coupled with other arguments for or against deletion, its use in these discussions in quite valid. Granted, in this case the subject only gets 868 unique hits out of 30+ million, but that's not really a small amount for unique hits--hell, a Google search for "Google" only yields 553 unique Ghits. Couple this with the news accounts, and we've got an obvious keeper here. -- H·G (words/works) 07:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The "unique hits" count only comes from the first 1,000 Google hits, which is why the # of unique hits could never theoretically be more than 1,000. -- Kicking222 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Interiot and HG. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Interiot. Alexa ranking and Google hits, ahoy! -- Kicking222 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Interiot. Also, take a look at who they are claiming as commercial customers and their statistics - impossible to verify if the stats are accurate, but from the number of times I've seen blogs using them, they seem plausable. - makomk 09:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I came here looking for a page to link people to for basic information on Feedburner, since the independent news project I'm a part of uses Feedburner to handle its feeds and I'm trying to write documentation for the website for future sysadmins. This looks like a simple, informational article that appears to be well-sourced and coherently written.  I say keep it and improve upon it. --Skyfaller 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Company is without a doubt notable. If you polled a bunch of people who follow web technologies, I doubt you'd find many who hadn't heard of FeedBurner.  AlistairMcMillan 16:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article needs work, but the impact Feedburner has had on the feed community is pretty obvious. When news services such as Reuters and even Wikinews use Feedburner rather than make their own feed, you know it's made an impact. Fix it up and it'll do fine. mountainfire 20:43, 12 August 2006 (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.