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 no consensus. Izno (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CloudApp[edit]

CloudApp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Routine product, with routine pr and notices, but no significant discussions I could identify. The version in the esWPis almost identical. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree, it seems like the majority of sources are either routine coverage (about features, funding, etc) or are additions to lists of other apps, where CloudApp is just another out of 5, 10, or 25 other products. If there was a company article, maybe there could be a sentence or so mention, but it doesn't seem like it should have its own article per WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:PRODUCT right now. - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable product Graywalls (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple qualifying sources not cited in the article. I added them in a comment on the bottom of the article. I think it should be moved to promising draft status. Brad Thomas Hanks (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first and fourth source you added do seem more significant. (I'm skipping over the other sources, because one's a slideshow of various apps and the others seem like routine coverage/software updates). But I'm not sure about their independence from the subject or significance, because one mentions affiliate links and the other is based around (routine?) coverage of a new software version + quotes from the CEO, so I find them a bit questionable. The best source in the article is [1], but I'm still not sure if one strong source plus the two above is enough or not. If some editors can weigh in - are these sources enough to show notability? - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2020 (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.