Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zi Corporation

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 speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn his nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zi Corporation

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

~~Not notable per WP:CORP or WP:GNG. The only sources I could find are routine "directory"-style listings and non-independent press releases about the "patent war" and eventual takeover.~~ Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Zi was an interesting case for software patents, it was also listed on NASDAQ, made products that shipped in huge volumes that made a big difference for many users, esp. re. Chinese text entry. The company did receive significant coverage in independent media (see refs), which in sum should be more than enough to make it notable in an encyclopedia that is not paper. The Klein and Lancer controversies are also noteworthy. -- Egil (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . I find it compliant with WP:NN. More so , in current form, it is definitely worth enough an interesting read. Devopam (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely as this article at least has considerable information and sources, sure it's now non-existent but the coverage is certainly enough. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw AFD nomination - sourcing has improved substantially since nomination. My BEFORE search (a Google "news" search) did not deliver many of the sources now used in the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2015 (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.