Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IRCCloud

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IRCCloud[edit]

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

Third party references apparently consist of a single press release.. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only references are entity's own pages and a press release.--Rpclod (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm new here and I'm open to contribute to this article until it fits the requirements :)

Hey guys my motivation to write this article was not to waste my time, instead I wanted to add something valuable to the community, I'm a long-time user of IRC and IRCCloud somehow connected me again to that scene. So I add 3 additional, independent reviews or press releases to the the article and than can it be accepted without any votes to delete? Thanks for your comments! Please also note, that this tool made me going to the WP IRC channels to get some help with another article I was contributing, so can't be that bad and also easy to use instead of other Internet_Relay_Chat#Clients, but at the end of the day everybody has the right to choose. --Never stop exploring (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions would be appreciated and I would recommend a delay in considering response to the AfD until you have had an opportunity to contribute. Please review the general notability guidelines. The primary issue is notability, not technical competence. Press releases are unlikely to help your cause since they are pushed by the subject. Look for articles in well-known technical magazines that critically analyze the software. Some real criticism (potentially negative) is good, because it is an indication that the article is not just a disguised press release. Good luck and thanks for your interest.--Rpclod (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks notability. Eeekster (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the place to learn about Internet services. D4v1d04 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. ― Padenton|✉ 23:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm counting 5 external references currently. The article should be kept and the originator or other motivated contributor should be given an opportunity to improve the article if necessary. It does not appear any "Alternatives to Deletion" per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy have been pursued. Ddosguru (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at them more closely, none of them are reliable sources, all are WP:SPS. The alternatives to deletion don't need to be tried before an AfD. AfDs are typically to determine whether a subject meets notability guidelines or not, which is not something that can be fixed or changed through tagging or the editing process. If people feel the merge and redirect options are appropriate, users will vote on them in an AfD.― Padenton|✉ 08:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is very unfortunate how these corporate companies are hiring people to create their wikipedia entires and using wikipedia as an advertising platform for their products and promoting their brands under impression of another unbiased wikipedia article.--Badnaam (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2015 (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.