Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superfeedr

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superfeedr

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

This is suggest a piece of info and not an article. It can possibly kept if the info is raised to the level of article and notability is established. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, notable company for those working in the field. I needed a quick NPOV summary of what they do, couldn't find one, so I found out and wrote one. Obviously it's a stub and needs expanding; I hope others will be able to do that. I don't understand why a stub should be marked for deletion just because it is still a stub. Silas S. Brown (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found 2 sources[1][2] very quickly but it needs more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this notice was added, Hindustanilanguage modified his comment above by adding "It can possibly kept if the info is raised to the level of article and notability is established." I responded by changing my "I don't understand why being a "piece of info" would be reason to delete a stub" into "I don't understand why a stub should be marked for deletion just because it is still a stub." Silas S. Brown (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, fails WP:CORP. Only 1 self-reference. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added in the other two references that Colapeninsula found. But I'm still hoping that others can improve the article. It's currently a stub. Doesn't stub status grant more leniency? Is there a policy on this? Thanks. Silas S. Brown (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:CORPDEPTH as coverage has been limited to WP:ROUTINE. The one article that goes beyond routine in Techcrunch says the company was "randomly selected" for coverage. On that basis, this ought not to be considered. I did a search and couldn't come up with any significant coverage of the company outside of routine announcements about products, etc. --Batard0 (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - covered in depth by independent, reliable sources, thus meeting WP:N. Coverage cannot be construed as "routine", except in the "It's routine to cover the goings-on at notable companies". Wily D 08:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WilyD, if there is in-depth coverage by independent, reliable sources, can you add them into the page, because currently notability has not been established. I'm inclined to agree with the proposal to delete unless you can come up with the kind of source support that Batard0 has suggested. Fireflo (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2012 (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.