Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cribl

: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 soft delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_preload&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:Cribl}}&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cribl}}&editintro=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_intro&preloadtitle={{urlencode:Cribl}}§ion=new&title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_undeletion&create=Request request the article's undeletion]. ✗plicit 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

=[[:Cribl]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Cribl}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Cribl}})

Doesn't seem like it actually meets NORG. Coverage is all your typical SERIESA stuff. History is also a little suspicious TBH but that's mostly secondary to the routineness of coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - In a whopping three months of editing (just acknowledging that I'm a newer editor, so take this opinion for what it's worth), I've already seen enough of similar type marketing articles roll through suggested edits. I believe almost all of the coverage listed belongs to the category of trivial WP:ORGTRIV and WP:FORBESCON, and I've seen other editors describe these kinds of pages as "cruft." That said, the weakness in my comment relates to [https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/splunk-jury-gives-it-1-for-software-copyright-win-against-cribl Bloomberg Law] article about a lawsuit it lost and won (only had to pay $1). I don't believe that raises it to notable, but it's something and makes me a little hesitant...so weak delete it is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MertenMerten (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.