Talk:IPass

=Linkspam and unexplained deletions=

Untitled
Zadar2007, please don't add external links without considering policy WP:EL: Wikipedia is not a linkfarm or advertising page. Also could you explain why you deleted the section on limitations. No doubt it and all the rest of this article could use some citations, but it's not unreasonable on it's face, and you could at least explain your disagreement...Aaron Lawrence (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually on further review I suppose Zadar2007 is also the anonymous 216.239.97.227 who edited then deleted the Limitations section twice before. You are skating close to the limits of the 3-revert rule. Aaron Lawrence (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This article still sounds like an advert. Coverage "that can be used to connect to the Internet anywhere in the world"..??? Aaron, I must say, you're doing a great job keeping this article clean (just by looking at the history), so I won't tag it as |reading like an advert. But I'll add this comment here for posterity, since it looks like the other "editors" are just single-purpose accounts for making this article an advertisement: see the contributions for Lmatzdorff and Zadar2007. The linked references/articles are still more informative than this article, imo (supported clients, limitations). Statements like this: "...signing up for local services, but this can be a lot of bother for short-term usage, requires local knowledge, and may even be impossible in the time available" are certainly not "encyclopedic". "A lot of bother"?? Try using this service from Linux. That's a bother. (The referenced articles explain that Linux is not supported.) This article still needs to be a little more even -- eg, the repeatedly deleted "limitations" section would only be a start. Michael (talk|contrib) 19:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Michael, I agree it's not a very good article. I added a fair bit of content a while back, including that clumsy phrase "a lot of bother" you've highlighted. But I can't find much in the way of references - some of it is based on my own experience (tsk tsk, original research). Then the marketers arrived and made it worse. I haven't fought too hard as it is a pretty obscure article - I have wondered whether it is notable enough to even keep.Aaron Lawrence (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

iRoam is, as far as I am informed, no longer in service (I can't seem to find their webpage either). Consider removing it completely from the article 188.120.93.27 (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * iRoam is definitely still in service .Gr8webdiva (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel like this is an outright advertisement (starts with world leader, contains lots of "leader", world best blawhatever, does not explain what the product actually is or works, contains no information about the company itself, zero citations) and should be deleted. The company is not relevant enough to justify investing work in making the article worth keeping. 78.55.201.110 (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above person. This entire article reads like an advertisement. The only reason I would vote to keep the article, however, is because it is publicly listed on NASDAQ and their shareholders may want to know more about the company. Nothing is cited, calling the entire text into dispute. Trying to find any neutral articles (not press releases) about this company is difficult. Atomicblue (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)