Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CloudRail

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. The one "keep" does not address the reasons for deletion, i.e, insufficient sources. Sandstein 10:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CloudRail

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I Proposed deletion a couple of weeks ago, stating that there were no independent sources at all, and MrX seconded the proposal, but the creator of the article removed the proposal. He added three references, presumably in order to establish notability, but those are a news announcement at TechCrunch that the company had secured some funding, a page at Dropbox which merely includes CloudRail in a list of 21 Core API SDKs, and a page on a web site called "disqus", which states that it "focuses on helping independent publishers grow successfully", and that "Reveal is an easy-to-use and effective native advertising solution that helps you earn money from your site. It’s integrated into Disqus where you can manage your earnings." None of these does anything at all to establish notability in Wikipedia's terms. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete Fails WP:GNG and has strong smell of advertising The Banner talk 13:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep It's hard for a page describing freeware to be an ad, don't you think? The Github stats show that it's moderately well-liked, but I'd agree that the article lacks sources. This is the case with a lot of freeware, especially backend/boilerplate stuff. I'd liken it to other backend pages like SVGALib, which typically only link to the project itself. Wikipedia seems to be more accommodating for free and gratis software. Granted, this article left me pretty confused as to what the software actually did until I read the sources.
- P.S., Do you really not know what Disqus is? If you're going to suggest web backend articles for deletion, it seems like you should recognize the big names in the field. Jergling (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:39, 22 July 2016 (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.