Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vringo

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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 05:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vringo

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

I proposed this article be deleted for appearing like an advertisement on July 22. There was no objection to the proposed deletion for 7 days but an administrator did not delete the article. Perhaps this deserves more discussion. Thank you for your input. --Xwarrior3721 (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was started with just the text above, untemplated, and added to the log page from a week ago. I've reformatted it with the proper template. This has been done as a courtesy, and I'll officially stay out of the discussion itself, other than to note that three earlier attempts to create an article on this company were A7/G11 speedied back in 2008. --Finngall ^talk 01:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Being written as an advertisement is not in and of itself sufficient reason for deletion (and I don't see that as too much of an issue here anyway). There are a sufficient number of WP:RS to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Looks like a keeper. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:01, 3 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 12:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per Lesser Cartographies. I have added {{advert}} to the article so the complaint can be dealt with by the article's editors. ~KvnG 03:32, 15 August 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.