Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feedspot

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. Very little discussion, but the one "keep" opinion makes no argument based in guidelines or practice, i.e., about the level of coverage in reliable source the topic has received.  Sandstein  21:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feedspot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable website which fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are ~3 secondary sources used in the article, but one of them is a press release written by someone connected to the company. The others are quick reviews of the website, mostly because Google Reader closed. There has been no other coverage since. Elaenia (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, a non-notable web site. WP:WEB applies. References are to PR sources. Recently discussed at WP:COIN. John Nagle (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete at least not immediately. Feedspot may not be notable as a feedreader, but it's getting attention for its aggressive self-promotional use of subscribers' email contacts: when I started typing "feedsp.." in Google, the suggestion "feedspot spam" immediately popped up. Calmansi (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While Feedspot may not be particularly notorious, and seems to get lots of bad grades for their specific marketing practices, it does get used and talked about. There are probably a lot of pages on Wikipedia that are less useful. It could use a little info on number of users, frequency of update, and pros and cons of its particular methodology. If its actual entry is removed, it should probably (at least) point to a general page on comparing newsreaders for people who are trying to find out information about it as I did when I came to Wikipedia today. Kentpollard (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2016 (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.