Talk:MEDL Mobile

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because MEDL Mobile is a publicly traded company under the stock symbol MEDL.

The company has developed more than 100 mobile applications and works with clients that range from The New York Times Company (About.com) to Monster.com to Teleflora to Medtronic. The company has filed for a patent on it's proprietary recommendation engine. MEDL Mobile has launched an Application Incubator that has generated more than 100,000 mobile concepts from a community of tens of thousands of contributors. MEDL has built more than two dozen of these incubated app concepts and several of them have reached the top of Apple's App Store.

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... The content has been amended and improved. Thank you for your patience.ShinyMEDLObjects (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC) ShinyMEDLObjects (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Request edit on 9 February 2014

Please delete: "In November 2013 MEDL was accused of making elaborate claims through press releases as a part of a pump and dump scheme with its company stock.[1]"

It is a link to article that can't be read unless there is a paid subscription. So the line above might be advertising.

Also, if if the article were available without payment, would any article be allowed on any page dealing with a stock (like any article giving positive or negative assessments)?

Thank you for your time.

MetaBusey (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

_{(The above requested edit was made by clicking on a link in an automatically added notice.)}

I have edited the article to make clear that it was an opinion piece. However, I have not removed it. Being behind a pay wall does not make using a source "advertising". And no, not all "articles" can be used as references. Ones which are simply press releases from the company are not suitable as sources for positive claims, although they can be used to verify basic facts, e.g. date of founding, name of chief executive etc. As for negative claims, they'd have to be from a reliable source, and reported as an opinion piece if that is what they are. I'd consider Seeking Alpha to be a reliable source. Incidentally, there is zero independent, in-depth coverage of this company apart from its own press releases and indeed the Seeking Alpha piece, which calls the subject's notability into question. Voceditenore (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Pending revision rejected

I have rejected this pending change.

1. There was extended copypaste from copyright sources. See Copyvio Detector.
2. It had a promotional, unencyclopedic tone. See especially the last two sentences which are particularly inappropriate, but the problem is pervasive.
3. The revision removed all categories, formatting, and previous referencing. The article should be incrementally improved, not simply overwritten with what is essentially a press-release
4. There was completely inapproriate use of inline external links (most of which were not independent sources). Please read WP:External links for guidance.

If the editor of that revision has any affiliation whatsoever to this company or its executives, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for guidance before attempting to edit it again. If you are editing this article as part of your employment with this company or as a PR/editing contractor, please familiarise yourself with our Terms of Use concerning paid editing. Also please familiarise yourself with these guidelines for writing encyclopedic articles on companies. Voceditenore (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)