Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubikloud Technologies Inc.


 * 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. MER-C 04:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Rubikloud Technologies Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A typical promotional article. Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Funding, operations and selective awards mentioned as promotions. definitely influenced by the company officials. Light2021 (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * leaning Delete the Globe and Mail article is pretty good (even if it's local coverage), but my own searches don't turn up anything better, and I'm not convinced of notability by funding round coverage. (The newsworthiness of funding round coverage is mostly "what VCs are coughing up lately?" rather than newsworthiness of the funded companies.) I'd want more RS coverage than a local piece - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt by all means as this was in fact restarted yet after a past G11 deletion, both articles were equally advertising and this one is noticeably contains only what the company would advertise about itself; from the information, sources and accounts, they all show no one actually cared to come close to putting something both substantial and non-PR, therefore we should not accept it. SwisterTwister   talk  02:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Companies are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but nothing here is a credible notability claim or a WP:CORP pass. David Gerard is correct that the Globe and Mail reference is a good one, but one good reference is not enough by itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 26 October 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.