Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UKCloud

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. Sandstein 18:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UKCloud

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

No indication of significance. Appears to be just advertising. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as all this actually amounts to is PR entirely, none of it is actually substantial or convincing, at all. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete puffed up, not substantial - David Gerard (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not PR or Advertising? This is literally facts and content provided via references and links. Creating a page to get many people to contribute facts and knowledge to, got to start somewhere. Instead of deleting (because it's not advertising), maybe help and provide details with how to improve current page.Sachaawilks (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of note is that promotional aspects of the article were removed by another user prior to this nomination for deletion (diff). The article does not presently have a promotional tone. However, some of the sources in the article are primary. Also, the company was previously named Skyscape Cloud Services. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- I skimmed for sources on Skyscape and the RS coverage was mostly about the trademark dispute that led to the name change, and passing mentions noting their existence as a company that sold to the government - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 25 August 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.