Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySocialCloud


 * 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. The consensus is clearly to keep.  DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

MySocialCloud

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article--The only thing they are notable for is the people who have invested in it. This is essentially tabloid coverage based on trivial human interest. See the adjacent AfD with duplicated ontent.  DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject and founders are covered in reliable sources. The page's promotional language needs to be cut down though. Meatsgains (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep — Reliable sources! This article may need to be rewritten.--27century (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There may be enough reliable sources, but the one you added, www.forbes.com/sites, is not one of them. That is not Forbes magazine, but a collection of blogs with little or no editorial oversight. I can't recall an occasion at WP:RSN where they were considered reliable for more than the writer's opinion, certainly not for statements of fact. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  02:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  02:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draft and userfy perhaps as there's some coverage but this may simply be the expected coverage, not as solid as it could be. SwisterTwister   talk  05:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The page needs work, but nothing that requires deletion. We just need to cut down peacock and concentrate on the company not the founders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWisePowder (talk • contribs) 03:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject passes Notability. The article has sources from TechCrunch, Business Insider, The Huffington Post, and TheStreet.com. Here is an article in the ''Los Angeles Times. Cunard (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2016 (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.