Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloglines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. — CharlotteWebb 06:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bloglines
No claimed/sourced notability per WP:WEB. Only one interview on a newspaper blog. RJASE1 Talk 02:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Just check google. Leuko 02:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Did a quick Google news search and turned up a bunch of information. It appears to be the third- or fourth-largest RSS aggregator out there. --Wafulz 03:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It's just too short an article. There is no question about notability; there is a huge number of users. Josephgrossberg 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Invalid AfD? --Nevhood 04:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Well known and notable, but the article reads as if it is unremarkable. The article needs more information, not deletion!--Xnuala 05:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. This is an example where a quick google and {{unreferenced}} should at least be tried before an AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 08:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I've gone ahead and tagged it with {{unreferenced}}. The site is notable and should be kept. Koweja 15:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Notable site and product - article just needs upadted and improved. StuartDouglas 16:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong and perhaps speedy keep I agree, nominators should do some basic attempt to survey notability before resorting to AFD. In this case it's trivial to discover that it is a huge and important website. — brighterorange (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Bloglines is among the most popular web based RSS readers and has thousands of users. The article needs work, not deletion. Rcade 21:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and reworked I have reworked this article and removed the {{unreferenced}}. Please consider closing this discussion and remove it from AfD. Minh T. Nguyen 23:24, 5 March 2007 (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.
