Deletion of Drawbridge (company)

Comment: The reason given for the AfD nomination seems at the level of . For notability, I think we can use  as a guide. In this case, the Forbes, MIT Technology Review, BBC, and TelecomTV references already in the article are all secondary, in-depth, independent and from reliable sources. Reference 5, as a blog from the Guardian, may or may not be reliable, but it's also secondary, in-depth, and independent from a reliable news organization. With multiple secondary sources already extant in the article, the topic of the article is notable and the article should be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:GNG)

Comment: Passes  with coverage by http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20638132 BBC, http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/11/15/drawbridge-connects-mobile-and-desktop-marketing/ Forbes and http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2012/may/11/drawbridge-mobile-advertising ''The Guardian
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Accepted from AfC because Drawbridge is extensively covered in several reputable national news sources, for example ''http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/11/15/drawbridge-connects-mobile-and-desktop-marketing/ Forbes'' and the ''http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20638132 BBC''. The only confusion was whether the article was about the company or their 'platform'. I would say the subject meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)