Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloud Content Management

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. —SpacemanSpiff 02:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Content Management[edit]

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

Contested prod. No evidence given that this concept is indeed "emerging," given that there are no third party sources given other than a partial list of clients. Delete with no prejudice against recreation should there be evidence that "emerging" would have to be replaced with "established." Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A subject that inspires texts like

Designed to leverage the seamless content delivery of the web, CCM is characterized by trackable sharing with flexible workflow and an open platform approach to integrating with other web-based services

would appear to be doomed never to become an encyclopedia subject. This is patent nonsense and likely coatrack spam. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. "Fully-integrated, usage-driven search" and "organic discovery of relevant content", huh? At this juncture, I'm afraid the value-add of this kind of out-of-the-box paradigm-shifting solution is not entirely synergistic with Wikipedia's tactical game plan. In my somewhat subjective view, the article would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. — Rankiri (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There's a lot of buzz about this term on the net, but not in mainstream sources that I could find. (Even when I went "aha, there's a reference in Business Week!" it turned out to be a BW-based blog.) LOL at Rankiri's inspired parody. I wonder if the writer of the article would even get it? --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, it's WP:COATRACK WP:SPAM. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2010 (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.