Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are Cloud

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Cloud[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is about company with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only info I could find was press releases and company sites. TN X Man 16:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should have been speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising: a provider of Software as a Service (SaaS) data visualization and business intelligence (BI) software. Another one of them. No showing of long term historical notability or historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am assuming the nominator has checked the references and found them lacking. I find that creating a number of bad reference links in these articles is becoming a way for promotional articles to appear notable to a casual observer thus avoiding deletion. Despicable. Miami33139 (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETION WARNING SHOULD BE REMOVED This is a genuine company and due to its size and young age (just over 1 year old) it is understandable that there are not a huge number of outside sources to refer to. Everything written is factual, all the references to outside reviews are genuine, so it should not be falsely referred to as a "promotional" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.48.108.96 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No one said it isn't a genuine company, but it just doesn't pass WP:CORP. Sure, there are a lot of references, but they either lead to social networking sites of employees or they don't mention the company at all. Delete. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:10, 26 July 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.