Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenMEAP

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMEAP[edit]

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

Company does not appear to be significant in any way. No notable references. Possible vanity article. Shritwod (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The company does appear to be significant

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in RS sources. The OpenSource.com is an incidental mention and does not establish notability. A search did not reveal any significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Had a look. Seems to be a professional and determined lot, making an enterprise cross-platform mobile development tool-set, using HTML 5, CSS and Javascript and native distribution and deployment tools with a decent license. I had a search of the firmament, and there is <10 of these types of software manufacturers. Curiously of the big three, only Mono is covered with an article with HP and IBM's product missing. I think the article provides good encyclopedic knowledge, even for comparison, and especially for this type of dev. tool, a type which kicked off around 2010/2011 --still new but where all the money is. I think it's worth keeping. I know it's short of secondary references, but as numerous people have explained including myself, development companies and software may be critically important, but have a low surface presence on the firmament, but still pass WP:GNG. If we delete this, sooner or later all the entries in Mobile application development will be gone, and mobile app dev. will be eviscerated on WP from a company perspective.scope_creep talk 21:19 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Relisting comment: While relistings are normally limited to two instances, the arguments in the keep !vote above make a third relisting appropriate. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Plenty of other entries on Mobile application development do have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Moswento ^talky 08:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A company can be very professional and determined, but it doesn't make them notable. I wasn't able to find any non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:11, 22 April 2014 (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.