Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclino

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 . ✗plicit 00:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclino

Nuclino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Per discussion at Talk:Comparison of wiki hosting services (as well as numerous other people in the page history), Nuclino is not notable enough to warrant a standalone article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. A simple WP:BEFORE effort would have shown that this app has 40-odd Google Scholar mentions, some of them substantive. I have looked through some of the more promising English language articles and added use cases along with citations. I also edited the article so it's not so stub-like.

It would appear this is an app with an active userbase and some longevity and it is likely people will come to Wikipedia to find out more about it.

One comment - the "discussion" at Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_hosting_services was one user advocating for inclusion of another piece of software in the article, citing the inclusion of Nuclino as an example of something that should not merit inclusion, followed by a comment by User:Pppery about that other piece of software. I believe this is all good faith, but it's not exactly a lengthy conversation. Oblivy (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... and then someone else deleting Nuclino from the article. I filed this AfD because I saw a consensus there that Nuclino was not notable, and felt that consensus needed to be ratified in the proper venue for making such decisions.

I will admit that I failed to check Google Scholar before starting this AfD. But, looking at the sources you added, only "Top 10 Nuclino Alternatives & Competitors 2023" is in-depth coverage and I'm not convinced it's reliable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I share your doubts about the alternatives and competitors article, but after looking at it I found it substantive in the sense that it identifies specific shortcomings in this software (as opposed to the many list-of-product tech articles which just include a blurb and a link to buy), which is why I included it. The other mentions discuss specific deployments of the software so even though the actual treatment of the software is limited the articles show it has an ongoing userbase. Oblivy (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability criteria depend on depth of coverage, not the size of the userbase. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Received some routine coverage in German, deutsche-startups.de, gruenderkueche.de. Could redirect to some list with it instead of a standalone article, because the article is mostly citation overkill? IgelRM (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Of the sources already in the article: listicle, non-RS blogs, and passing mentions. (I couldn't find any mentions in the Workgroups eAssessment source, strangely.) I've also found a Russian-language source and a Czech-language thesis and a second thesis from GScholar which, while it isn't the primary topic, can be used to support factual statements. I've trawled GScholar and translated a bunch of sources (I'm a little surprised at how many non-English scholar sources exist). Most seem to be citing Nuclino's blog, while others give a surface-level examination of the site. What I'm gleaning from Google News results is that they are "alternative to XYZ"/"comparison of" posts. My digging hasn't dug up anything that would pass notability. SWinxy (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All coverage appears to be routine or surface-level. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most coverage is routine and there's nothing especially notable about the company. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 11:03, 23 April 2023 (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.