Deletion of AppViewX

Comment: I am currently of two minds on this.  I made a couple of edits as I tried to figure out whether the underlying topic was or wasn't notable.  Nominator {{U|David Gerard}}, did you mean to imply the article was the work of a cloud of SPAs, colluding together?  That is not what I saw when I looked at the article's history?  What I saw were contributors who disagreed with one another, working to correct what they saw as imperfect wroding by other contributors.  So - not colluding.  Were they SPAs?  I didn't check.  On the other hand, after looking at the sources, I'd say the article is currently quite inaccurate.  The references I looked at said AppViewX was spun off in 2016, while our article said it was founded in 2009.  That was definitely a problem, but not one for which deletion was the appropriate solution, if the underlying topic was notable.  '''So, is the topic of AppViewX notable?'''   says it would have to have ''"been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."''  Well, in addition to those press releases, I think there has been coverage in reliable independent secondary sources.  $30 million dollars of venture capital funding is not chicken feed, and that was published in independent secondary sources.  In my opinion the biggest weakness of both the wikipedia article and much of the RS coverage is that they are really vague about the firm's actual products.  Okay, I spent enough time to form an idea of what their product is.  They sell software that provides developers with a visual programming interface.  They claim this visual interface will enable developers who aren't professional software developers to develop visual applications of their own, without having to learn how to program.  I was a software guy, a lifetime ago, and I have a strong prejudice against those selling software that makes this kind of undeliverable promise.  But my strong prejudice is irrelevant, if RS talk about this topic.  And, no offense, David Gerard, to whatever extent your feelings about this kind of promise, this kind of software, lay behind your nomination, it too should be irrelevant here.  If third party venture capitalists put down $30 million bucks, and third party IT journals wrote about it, our personal prejudices should count for nothing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)