Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudo

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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 06:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudo

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

Unimportant subject matter, self-sourced. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What the hell is "self-sourced?" I checked the sources, and there are sources from TechCrunch and Reuters. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 01:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters reference = press release from the company. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Delete. Doesn't seem notable at all. only one referance on page to an article. Alan - talk 22:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; beta software from a 2008 startup. Did not find any general interest coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Since when is a company issued press release a notable coverage? Just because TechCrunch wrote about this software it does not make it notable, I fail to find any other significant coverage outside of TechCrunch. LoudHowie (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References would definitely need to be improved and expanded. The press release is certainly not third party. 27,000 Google hits, including some reviews, such as this, this, this and this would seem to be third party, non-trivial coverage. Some of them appear to give both pros and cons, so it seems to be at least relatively neutral. While not perfect, the subject would seem to meet notability guidelines, and I feel it should be kept and expanded. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- blog, blog, wiki, blog. user made content isn't RS. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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.