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 no consensus. MBisanztalk 17:47, 14 January 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 16:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,Riley 00:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A quick search of Google, GNews and Scholar, discarding coverage instigated by the company itself in one way or another, suggests there may be just enough independent sources to meet WP:CORP. —SMALLJIM 20:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted to bring page in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Not sure why the page states it's an orphan when there's a link from List_of_mobile_advertising_networks? (Disclosure: I work at Adfonic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan Cooper (talk • contribs) 13:54, 6 January 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, Sue Rangell✍ ✉ 04:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references seem sufficient to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:47, 7 January 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.