Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CloudForge

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 keep. The sourcing issues seem to have been addressed. Sandstein 09:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CloudForge

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The article only has one secondary source[1] and the rest are press releases. A Google News search[2] is empty. CorporateM (Talk) 03:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no singificant coverage found in non-primary reliable sources to indicate the subject is notable per the guideleines of WP:GNG or WP:CORP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reviewing the potential secondary sources provided by Nickb79 on the talk page, I have incorporated some of them into the article. They mostly replaced the press release based references. Of the seven references in the article, I consider the SD Times, developer.com, and Infoworld references to be reliable. The Cloud Ave and DevOps Angle refs are journalistic sites that could be considered to be widely read blogs, and so possibly notable. There are two PR based references left in that aren't reliable, but can probably be trusted to verify the particular facts they cite. The multiple reliable sources suggest this topic is notable. After a nice cleanup by Drmies and CorporateM, the promotional parts have been excised, leaving a fairly neutral article. Notability of the topic and few problems with the article suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep For same reason. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources were not originally found because it was recently renamed from Codesion to Cloudforge. Also, the article is now non-promotional and reasonably sourced. CorporateM (Talk) 18:21, 26 February 2013 (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.