Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cludo

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cludo[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)

After the author put this up several times without any sources (and was reverted), I left them a message about sourcing requirements. My own search check didn't look promising, but I thought they might have access to better stuff. Guess not: every reference provided is either self-published or purely promotional. That includes the two most reasonable-looking ones [1][2], both of which are clearly identified as marketing features. - Currently lack of sufficient independent coverage, fails WP:NSOFT. - Admittedly the previous incumbent (misspelling redirect to Cluedo) is kind of dumb, but this is not the material to replace it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have removed the promotional and unencyclopedic material (previous version). I could not see that their use of "machine learning" was particularly notable. I can't find a single impartial source talking about them in depth, I couldn't even find an impartial mention of them on technical discussion forums. – Þjarkur (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd suggest people trying to improve and save the article and save this read WP:THREE. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking WP:SIGCOV to pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2019 (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.