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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudbric[edit]

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

No notability. Virtually no 3rd party coverage; also, there's an unresolved notability cleanup tag from 14 months ago. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a bit confusing at first. Its actually about one of Penta Security's products called Cloudbric (and not a company by itself), but half of the article is about Penta Security itself. Penta Security may be notable but not this product. There is only very little coverage of it in reliable sources, and when there is then its only a short mentioning in a press release or something similar. Penta Security is a Korean company, but the coverage there seem to be the same: short mentions of this product in passing while speaking about Penta Security. It therefore fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. The article itself is also currently written like an advertisment and has been created by a single purpose account, so WP:PROMO applies. It therefore should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the contents themselves had actually been copy and pasted, the account was not noticeably used again and the current information and sources themselves are all trivial and unconvincing because there are ghost-sentences, never actually listing something significantly convincing and the information the speaks for itself, it only advertises the company's information and services, there's no non-PR information here. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; nothing to be salvaged here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 4 October 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.