Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingrid Cloud

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Cloud

[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)

This doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable software to include. The sources which actually discuss the software are in highly-specialist publications. Most of the references precede the software release date. Article was created by a user with a declared conflict of interest. SmartSE (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: CoI rightfully declared last 2 January 2019 on user page (but maybe not on article talk page which was a possible good faith mistake). Passed by Stevey7788 at AfC 25 April 2019. Assessed Physics Meno25 1 May 2019. Simultaneously templated and zoomed to AfC on 8 May 2019. A very bad process pathway that does not reflect well on Wikipedia in my view. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify:~~Weak keep: 'or failing that re-draftify~~. I am to a degree relying on the AfC reviewer of view of sourcing. I am also assuming the AfC reviewer picked up the COI ... I've done a little work over the past couple of days to make that clearer on the talk page and and also added a uw-coi to the coi editor really to give them a set of useful links. I examined the article and perhaps while there is a little about awards I'd like to seen gone there are some nice wikilinks into the reset of the encyclopedia. Yes this is perhaps a more geeky area than pop stars and TV shows but Wikipedia design can encompass that. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djm-leighpark: I came across this article because the AFC reviewer has made numerous suspicious accepts at AFC which are linked to this ongoing SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Japanelemu. This one doesn't quite fit the pattern of those as the original user declared their COI, but there are other similarities and is definitely possible that the reviewer was paid to accept it. There's nothing to indicate that they made any attempt to actually review the article content. SmartSE (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really like to assume AGF. However I observe Stevey7788 has not chosen to participate here and on review the balance of probability I note sufficient concerns to withdraw weak keep and move to draftify especially given lack of participation here.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Much of the text is almost verbatim from the website (as is one of the referenced articles). There is not yet any significant coverage to indicate notability. ogenstein (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NSOFT & WP:PROMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2019 (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.