- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Icloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
nn web service. writing is promotional, which is fixable, the real problem is that the references just don't show this service as being exceptional. there are five references. ref 1 is to the company - self-published, does not show nn. ref 2 is to information week - probably a good ref, unless information week was paid to review it, which happens. ref 3 is cnet news - NOT A GOOD REF. icloud gets one sentence in this article referring to subscriber numbers. this article has dozens of these one-offs. ref 4 is reuters - this is a republication of a press release. the award is not notable either. ref 5 is tattletech - a blog. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: weakly-sourced article written by the company that made the product. Alexius08 (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, @Kate (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot more google news hits. Is Salon.com a reliable source? Polarpanda (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- or zdnet? [1] Polarpanda (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete very little evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2009 (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.