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. postdlf (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MobileIron[edit]

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

I don't see evidence for notability here. The refs are either mere notices , or just repeating what the company says of itself. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as just an ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Promotional tone is not a reason to delete. There is very good evidence of notability in a good number of the 11 refs in the article. I consider the following reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Press releases are not reliable sources but if a respected publication is willing to parrot a press release and a reporter puts their name on it, I consider it reliable. What's your criteria DGG (talk · contribs)? ~KvnG 00:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a publication parrots a press release, that's churnalism, and it's possible that the publication never actually met WP:RS in the first place. And I don't think articles of churnalism can be considered independent sources. Better sources avoid press-release churnalism. Please find us a New York Times or Wall Street Journal article about the company if possible. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Promotional tone is absolutely a reason to delete. However, it passes WP:GNG handily. I'm borderline here as to whether the project is better off with the article here, but I don't see much here that could be salvaged if all of the promotional material were stricken, so I would advocate deletion without prejudice for recreation by a non-COI editor. Dea db eef 21:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You think this is Unambiguous advertising or promotion? I'm not going to dispute there's some promotional tone but it is not blatantly spam. There have been 60 editors involved in development of this article over three years. With that diversity it doesn't seem likely there could be enough WP:COI to merit WP:TNT. ~KvnG 21:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Please. As Xxanthippe said, the article is just an ad. If you refuse to delete it, and if someone commits to fix it, then please incubate here instead. I've read through this entire discussion. I'm still not convinced that MobileIron meets WP:GNG. Plus, the article fails WP:NPOV even though it's already three years old; it doesn't deserve to stay on Wikipedia at all, let alone in mainspace. Dear all: Can anyone please point us to two independent non-churnalistic reliably-sourced articles about MobileIron, preferably balanced articles which discuss the relative merits of both MobileIron and its competitors? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2013 (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.