Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cloud28+ (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cloud28+

Clear company-initiated advertising asked for restoring again and yet there's no actual changes made here, let alone the fact the past deletion and past reviews still apply because they were explicitly clear with what and why this violated our policies; the sources themselves are clear published and republished advertising. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deleted previously per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cloud28+; restored per User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Deletion of Cloud28+ draft. The content may not be appropriate for the mainspace, but it isn't poor enough for a second deletion from the draftspace when there is interest in it. I don't see any "clear company-initiated advertising" offhand, but I'll reconsider if it can be shown. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: @SwisterTwister: The sources are not published and republished advertising. They simply aren't. The Register is a respected IT news site, FT is FT, and the others are original articles that are much more than copy-pasted press releases. Try reading them. To say this is "clear company-initiated advertising" is also weird, when it isn't. This is a decent computing topic. If I look at a page like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_companies, it is very easy to find much worse articles, on organisations that aren't notable, and with terrible sources, such as ClockworkMod or QuantAlea. Re "there's no actual changes made here", I rewrote basically the whole article to try and improve it. Check the history. It seems like a double standard is being applied. I don't get it. - Holynightfever (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I examined the contents and all of them are still only mere business announcements and mentions. In facg, our simplest standards WP:CORPDEPTH itself says a mere major publication name is not an automatic factor. See also WP:OTHER STUFFED ITS. Current sources:

1 is an announcement
2 is an announcement from a tech blog
3 is paymeny-only to see
4 is an announcement from a tech blog
5 is announcement
6 is similar
7 is far from being enough

SwisterTwister talk 18:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: I disagree. Source 1 contains critical discussion of the topic; 5 may announce something about another company but includes this topic in its discussion because this topic is notable; 2 and 4 are tech blogs but this is a tech topic. Not sure what you mean by "7 is far from being enough" - is it a begrudging acceptance that the source is good? I would appreciate if another reviewer could look at this, one not determined to stick to their guns. Holynightfever (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.