Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloem


 * 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. There are non-trivial sources and a consensus to keep. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Cloem

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. Fails WP:ORG. I could not find significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Edcolins (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Several of the references cited are discussions of the novel approach to patent literature from this company, in independent sources (eg this and this. Article is being edited by a new editor whom I have been trying to guide, and who informs me she has no COI. Is VentureBeat (this a reliable source?  Pam  D  23:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The references appear to show two bursts of short-lived coverage, one in October 2014 and another one in February 2015 . The coverage isn't deep however, mostly short and anecdotal, in blog posts, self-published pieces and the like. I don't think the VentureBeat guest post qualifies as a reliable source. The company seems to have received very little notice from independent sources. --Edcolins (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm working on it :) I'm a new user so I'm fuguring out every day a bit more - trying to make this article more informative and less advertising - which I still don't feel like it sounds like an ad, probably just my style of writing as I studied this subject - can't keep the author out of my mind - however, I would be very grateful for your help so that this article can remain on wikipedia - it'd be really sad if this subject wont be explained and the reformation of the whole patent system would slow down. There are probably quite a lot of people our there considering cloem a great invention - as I found it on the web, too - but they're just to confused about how to promote this idea - without actual goals of marketing or selling it but just inform others. It just happens that I decided to give it a try on wikipedia - which looks like I'm not good at :/ Samira RZ (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How great you think the idea might be is fully irrelevant to decide whether to keep the article. See WP:VALINFO and WP:NOBLECAUSE. --Edcolins (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:ORG is an irrelevance. The subject here is not the commercial organisation behind this project, it is the novel concept that they are applying: "brutalizating the permutation space" of patent claims. This is also a new article, by a new editor, who is actively working on it. We are not supposed to be so working to be so actively anti-knowledge. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the article is about a company, not about the concept of "algorithmic patenting". --Edcolins (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, maybe if it does fail WP:ORG, it could be repurposed as a main article algorithmic patenting, if that's notable enough? A very interesting concept. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it was certainly clearer before these edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? --Edcolins (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep only if this can improved considerably, if not, simply draft and userfy until then. If more eyes are needed to look at this later, it can be nominated again. SwisterTwister   talk  07:24, 3 December 2015 (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.