Deletion of Veracode

Comment: The sources mentioned in this AfD collectively meet the  notability criterion. In particular there's the ''NYT'' piece, which I think seals the deal
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: Passes  due to sources available, and coverage in media
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Like Michig, I fail to see what is so promotional in this article. The ''worst'' puffery in the article is {{tq|the company’s cloud-based service '''safeguards''' more than 600 organizations worldwide, including three of the top four banks in the Fortune 100 and more than 25 of the world’s top 100 brands.}} (emphasis mine) and the list of awards won. Now, if we remove the list of awards won on grounds of puffery and "churnalism", the next thing you know is that the article will be nominated for deletion (by the usual crew) because it fails . Gerard's assertions that Gartner is a "sponsored content outlet" border on are ridiculous; kindly nominate Magic Quadrant for deletion to test it. For all its shortcomings and bias, being listed (at the top of) on the Magic Quadrant is a major achievement by any company https://www.gartner.com/doc/reprints?id=1-2KW56YW&ct=150807 so it passes  with flying colors
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: based on  in http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/23/all-industries-fail-cybersecurity-govt-the-worst.html CNBC, http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2414316/government-is-worst-industry-sector-for-fixing-security-vulnerabilities-claims-veracode Computing,  http://fortune.com/2015/03/02/exclusive-veracode-files-for-ipo/ Fortune, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/business/yourmoney/22proto.html New York Times, http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2013/07/08/boards-need-to-know-risk-of-outsourced-software-chris-wysopalveracode/ Wall Street Journal, and http://www.economist.com/node/10789417 The Economist, for starters. And trouts to everyone griping and sniping here and assuming bad faith on the part of fellow editors. Not productive
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM)

Comment: Meets , although ''possibly'', but not necessarily certainly, on a slightly weaker level (unable to fully access some paywalled sources). Here's another source from ''Fortune'': http://fortune.com/2014/09/11/veracode-40-million-funding-ipo
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)