Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SparkBuild

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SparkBuild

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure spam. I note that IPs have come along to remove cleanup tags from the page, but there is nothing worth cleaning up. BD2412 T 06:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BD2412, this article was repurposed by an IP in this Sept 2020 edit. Such references as it contains (which are dead links) relate to the former IT topic rather than the civil engineering firm now squatting. Were it not for the present AfD, I could see a case for reverting past the IP's actions, but as it stands, this leaves the question of whether this AfD should be conducted relative to the former, the latter, or both uses? AllyD (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @AllyD: I had not delved that far back into the history. Whatever the outcome, the page should be protected against further IP misconduct. BD2412 T 19:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; well noted, AllyD. The original SparkBuild, in the software sense, seems to be a free version of a CloudBees product[1], and since that business already has an article, anything relevant to SparkBuild could go there. If no one has even noticed that the SparkBuild article got squatted nearly a year ago, then it's unlikely there is a great demand for such material. Meanwhile, the squatters are thoroughly unconvincing when it comes to notability. So there is nothing to be achieved by keeping the current article. Its remaining two references are both long-since gone. Elemimele (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CloudBees, but only if what above comment by Elemimele is true. Alice Jason (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Firstly, regarding the engineering firm that has occupied this article since Sept 2020, it is a copy-paste from their Weebly site (including the mis-spellings); no evidence of notability provided or found. Secondly, regarding the build tool from Electric Cloud / CloudBees, it seems lacking in non-announcement-based evidence that notability has been attained (WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT); a merge-redirect to the vendor page may be possible, but would I think result in WP:UNDUE imbalance there. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.