Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubiquiti Networks (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquiti Networks

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

Seems to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. MSJapan (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete deleted 10 years ago and still fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many articles about Ubiquiti which you can find by searching for "ubiquiti news" or similar in a search engine, in addition to the sources provided in the article. WP:CORPDEPTH only requires more than one source, and there are many more than that. Orthogonal1 (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is all routine and includes press releases. LibStar (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not all press releases. The GPL violation issue, the series of security flaws and the violation of US sanctions are, clearly, not advertising material for Ubiquiti. Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this is a notable publicly-traded high-tech company. I would not delete this one. The article needs a major revamp, that's a given. But I believe it can be done. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per K.e.coffman. Haseo9999 (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERX. not a genuine !vote. LibStar (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur that the article needs to be revamped but it is a notable company that should remain. Callsignpink (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what makes it notable? LibStar (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTED is applicable here. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 7 August 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.