Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudwear

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. slakr^\ talk / 02:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudwear[edit]

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

Initial review-- this company doesn't seem notable, it's very small, a search yields this page and the website of this company, and a Facebook page. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previously rejected at AfC on Notability grounds, but with the addition of a couple of unreferenced sentences now uploaded into main article space anyway. AllyD (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Out of curiosity, how would I go about proving the notability of the company to the guidelines' satisfaction? Redfhendrix (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Why do you say salt, User:Xxanthippe? Is there any evidence that this article has been created multiple times? I couldn't find any. --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prescience. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

LOL! --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find this press release in which Samsung list the company's product in a list of apps for their device, but that would be insufficient to establish the "iwunta" product as notable, and I can find nothing that shows the company to be notable. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 22:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:CORP. To answer your question, User:Redfhendrix, the way to prove the notability of a company is to show significant coverage by independent reliable sources. That means that the company has been significantly written about by third parties (newspapers, etc.) with a reputation for reliability. Things like blogs, press releases, etc. don't count; the company must have attracted significant coverage from independent reliable sources. If that coverage does not exist, then there is no amount of rewriting or adding unreliable sources that will get the article into shape to meet the guideline of WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Personally, I think that the references posted: 1) Coverage as CBS partner at Comic-Con (Just added) and 2) Coverage as a funded/partnered business with Telefonica (Previously Cited) are sufficient proofs of notability. Granted, I am relatively new to the wikipedia creation crowd so I don't have the insight you all may have. If on last look you guys decide to delete, I'm not going to throw a fit and re-post as some may predict. However, if you could let me know the process for re-review once I feel like Cloudwear has received enough coverage to be "notable," I'd appreciate it since I don't want to self-salt out of fear someone may actually salt. Redfhendrix (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any WP:COI in this matter, such as editing for reward? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

- As you can probably see from my public profile, this is my first real foray into creating Wiki content. I'd rather not have it be a failure. Is there anything particularly biased in the article? Redfhendrix (talk) 3:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Redfhendrix, you could request the closing administrator to "userfy" it to you. If they agree, that means it would be put in your own space, not part of the encyclopedia, where you could develop it. Once you think you have enough significant coverage to pass WP:CORP (consensus seems to be that you don't now; and I agree with that assessment; all you have from third-party sources is a few passing mentions, not significant coverage), you could ask that same closing administrator if it is sufficiently improved for you to repost it. --MelanieN (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for the insight MelanieN, I will probably do that. Redfhendrix (talk) 3:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You can make that request here at this discussion, if you like. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you can copy the source of the article and paste it into your own sandbox. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Userfy: If this article is chosen to be deleted, please userfy it back to me so I can keep an eye on the subject matter and request a review in the future. Redfhendrix (talk) 1:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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.