Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudmark

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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Alex Shih, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudmark

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

Article is mostly promotional in content and appears to contain little if any encyclopedic content. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree the article can be bettered, yet it is part of an encyclopedic view of the email landscape. Cloudmark has hundreds of employees who made significant contributions (for example, authoring RFC 6376). It certainly deserves a Wikipedia page. ale (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the deletion policy this seems to fall under reasons number 1, 4, 8 for deletion. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. Content is 100% promotional, as in:

"Long a foe of spammers, in 2015, the company helped the FTC stop an affiliate spam company promoting diet pills!"

Etc. etc. No encyclopedically relevant prose and no indications of notability or significance. Article cited to self-sourced materials and passing mentions. I requested a deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2017 (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.