Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPNav

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. Sandstein 06:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPNav

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

This company appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH, and doesn't appear to qualify at this time for a Wikipedia article. Source searches are not yielding significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPNav is a relatively new name for the company. Search under "IP Navigation Group" and "Erich Spangenberg" for further sources, such as this article in Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/11/09/meet-the-texas-lawyer-suing-hundreds-of-companies-for-using-basic-web-encryption/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabcfi (talk • contribs) 10:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2013 (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.