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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MuleSoft[edit]

MuleSoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Deleted once before as an advertising at AfD in 2012 as it is, which I'll note says something as it is given how PR-consumed Wikipedia still was at the time, and this article repeats and emphasizes it since it's all PR and unconvincing information, of course only what the company would want to say itself, which is not surprising considering the article's history with quickly-coming-and-going accounts only focusing with this article, and that's not surprising of course considering this company's environment would be PR and that alone. My own searches are then mirroring this by simply finding PR, republished PR and other unconvincing sources, nothing of actual substance, and there are no signs of it happening. Quite honestly, I suggest Deleting and Salting lest we have a 3rd AfD with the same impacts and events. SwisterTwister talk 17:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is not questioned, unless we make assumptions about why a nomination talks about searches that find "unconvincing" sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Stating that this article is "only what the company would want to say about itself" appears to be an assertion that each of the content contributors to this article is a mouthpiece for the topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As for the previous AfD, the nomination states, "Deleted once before as an advertising at AfD in 2012 as it is".  In that AfD, the only !vote cited an essay, and the closing did not follow WP:QUORUM.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:PROMO says, "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery."  Please cite examples of non-neutral wording.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Since 2012, it's reached a valuation of $1.5 billion and is considered a unicorn startup, and is apparently about to IPO. Sources now seem enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and include TechCrunch [1], Fortune, [2], The Wall Street Journal, [3], CNBC [4], and a reputable Forbes contributor, [5] among others. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  Article is sourced with well-known WP:RS.  No examples of WP:NOT have been cited.  I have skimmed the article, and don't see either a massive problem or a problem with the requirement that it be written in "an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable company in real world terms and with easily sufficient reliable source coverage. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per above, passes WP:GNG.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- unicorn startups are indeed rare. I also found this book written on one of its products, published by O'Reilly Media: Getting Started with MuleSoft Cloud Connect. Must be a noted company in its space. Product brochure content needs to be culled though. I already removed the meaningless awards (now on Talk page). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2016 (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.