Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobiforge

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 05:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobiforge

Declining db-spam deletion, taking to AfD. There are lots of ghits for mobiforge and dotmobi ... so many that it's very hard to find evidence of RSs, but I believe they're there. Promotional tone, but per article talk page, creator is willing to work with us. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Whatever else this is, this is a website catering to a business community of developers, of slight interest to the general public. Even if it's covered in independent sources, those sources are likely to serve very narrow communities of people with financial stakes in that business. These sources may be reliable, but not enough to establish notability of this site. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was told it was hard to find evidence of reliable sources for this site, so I did not look myself, and it looks like I should have. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. But if it's covered in Forbes, it would appear to be notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the non-trivial hits in very notable publications here. The fact that something is of slight interest to the general public is not a reason to delete if it meets the criteria of our notability guidelines. The article's subject seems to have plenty of coverage in reliable, third party sources so I see no reason not to follow WP:N in this case. No compelling reason to go against our normal standards. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I'm seeing Google News but the links to Forbes are showing up as "not found" and all the other sources aren't as notable. Looking at Alexa's linkin section, those aren't exactly cutting edge sites. Mainly links from blogs, link farms and forums, though there are a couple of more interesting ones. I can see this going either way. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 16:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to give more time to assess the sources (which lead to error pages). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 15 April 2009 (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.