Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CloudPelican


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

CloudPelican

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I previously put a WP:PROD on this page with the rationale "Unreferenced article on software under development which does not meet notability guidelines; at best, WP:TOOSOON." The Prod was removed by the article creator with the comment "Added more details, a first reference. We will keep updating this article and adding references to increase it's added value" The reference added is a development blog entry. Still no evidence of attained notability, so I'm bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please define the problem if the core programmer is providing information, it's probably the best reference out there? RobinUS2 (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The fundamental matter at issue here is verifiable notability: see WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Added more references to the content. Does this improve AllyD? RobinUS2 (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a listing and a Twitter link: see the WP:RS advice linked above. AllyD (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - No reliable sources, no evidence of notability of this software; created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete - sorry, but none of those "sources" are really sources at all. A link to the company's Twitter feed as a source? Yeah... no. No evidence it passes WP:GNG and I couldn't find a single source that could possibly be described as "significant coverage". Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: no sources to assert notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:02, 28 September 2012 (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.