Deletion of RadiumOne (2nd nomination)

Comment: Please note, we don't delete an article where the topic meets GNG, we clean it up instead. Reviewing some of the Delete !votes above indicates some editors have misinterpreted core policy and are proposing that  trumps  which is incorrect
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:GNG)

Comment: The first question that should always be asked at an AfD is "Does this topic pass GNG". Forget about how the topic is written and whether it is promotional or not. *If* it passes GNG, then it should not be listed here but should be cleaned up. Far too many articles are listed at AfD for reasons involving "Promotional content" but where the topic otherwise passes GNG. In this particular case, there are a number of references that show that the topic meets GNG and CORPDEPTH and the sources meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Reliable sources give significant coverage so it meets the requirements for .  I'm sure a company that is valued at a half a billion dollars, is going to get ample attention in business news.  If there is a problem with the article, it can be fixed, no reason to delete it.  I'm going through it now to remove some stuff that shouldn't be there
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: See  which says: {{Tq|The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple  independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability,  Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: Routine notices, brief announcements, notices, quotes...."}}. If something as simple as  still can't be satisfied, there's no convincing signs. Substance is stated in not only that but every other applicable page for notability in companies. Also, WP:N actually states as is: "A topic is ''presumed'' to merit an article if" note both the emphasized "presumed" and "if", making it not a guarantee at all, and that's why WP:N states it's not a pillar policy at all. "A source in the business column section about a controversy seems" is unacceptable because it fits 's statement of "routine notices" and "brief announcements". We as the community judge any articles, and that's we take them to AfD. As for Bloomberg, regardless if it was approved, it's still explicitly a business profile that includes their own authored bio, that itself violates , WP:N and WP:What Wikipedia is not, therefore outweighing anything a mere noticeboard announced. "and is a prominent news media worldwide" is not what their own articles have shown and noted and their articles, especially the particularly blatant ones, will note "Source is the company website" or "Information taken from the website courtesy of company", instantly violating , WP:N and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Especially when CNN has knowingly used freelance journalists as it is, instantly violating our policies in having news be by trustworthy journalists, not someone who can be hired by the company. Regardless, this isn't taking away or outweighing what I explicitly quoted above. No one else cared to actually analyze the sources themselves and see the clear policy violations, so the vote has no weight. For example, the clear fact the company was involved and continued to involve itself, violates WP:NOT and also our policy WP:PAID. For example, I found multiple violations in the fist list of sources offered despite the stated "Satisfies WP:RS" when it in fact had not, because the sources were from ''both'' trade PR publications and with explicit labeling of them in the said links. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP has never been policy and by our standards for policymaking, it wouldn't easily be taken as policy, because it's simply a suggestive guideline, and even though, statements of improvements have been listed, no one else ever cared to confirm these possibilities of improvements. Also, WP:NOTPERECT, while in the editing policy, is not in fact '''ever''' mentioning company or company subjects, thus it cannot immediately be taken to be a guarantee of accepting this at all. In this case, also, WP:NOTPERFECT itself still states that articles ''must'' satisfy our policies, in which this one is not. The quote of "Fix it, don't expect others to" is not applicable and has no weigh because of the fact '''anyone''' could've fixed this to satisfy the policies, and yet they haven't and there's been weeks now, suggesting there's no possibility of improvements, especially not when the sources have now been analyzed without serious objections. To answer the comment of "But a lot of other sourcing exists" is not applicable because, as shown earlier, https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=RadiumOne#q=RadiumOne&tbm=nws a careful search here easily and quickly showed nothing but published and republished PR exists, thus especially not acceptable in WP:RS at all. Even there, such sources as MuMbrella which repeatedly appears in the link, is listed as a "trade publication" making it instantly unacceptable, and continuing there shows such similar ones as "Statement: This is a republished company press release" (also violating WP:RS), and "This is a business tech blog servicing the tech business" (not satisfying  either as it's a business PR publication). Continuing into this search showed every variety of local news station stories, tech blogs focused to PR services, freelance contributed articles (violates WP:RS as it basically means anyone could've hired or paid for it). I continued into nearly 10 pages into it (surely any good ones would've appeared instantly), until I actually started getting some of the same links. If this is what people label as "other sourcing", it certainly isn't satisfying our policies, and policies is how ''we this encyclopedia judge articles''.  In fact, I performed ''two searches'' in the time I nominated this article, and both times found nohing but PR, so there's no substance for me to improve this at all thus deletion. Because of the still existing fact this article is outweighed by the giant 4-paragraph "products" section, it violates WP:NOT which states: {{tq|Wikipedia is not a business webhost, Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services}} Even if we were to remove a few sentences, that would still make it a violation. As for the earlier suggestion of "ignoring rules...we can keep this article", WP:NOT is a policy that has always allowed deletion of anything unsuitable so there's no ignoring it at all. In fact, our standards have actually changed since 2014, when https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RadiumOne&oldid=605676372 the article was this, and even then, the article never actually improved better from that state, because it only had a few paragraphs and sentences; simply because it wasn't nominated then quickly is not a defense at all, and we're actually obligated to a higher level now ''because'' of the recent paid advertising campaigns
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)