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. ✗plicit 00:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudian[edit]

[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)

Contested prod; fails WP:CORPDEPTH (see arguments in WP:SERIESA). All sources are either or both of PR or routine announcements. FalconK (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was refund requested by an IP at Special:Diff/1069957180. While the name sounds great, and in my mind sounds vaguely sort-of-close to some other coompany the product does not what I'd expect to see for notability, that's not to say there's anything wrong with it. Looked up the Register reference and seemed to fail verifcation so someone would have to do a significant turn around to rescue this, and a incompetent CITEBOMB timewaster wouldn't be appreciated either. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of additional content added in the past 24 hours.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:01, 13 February 2022 (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.