Deletion of Tally Solutions (2nd nomination)

Comment: Notability, schmotability - what matters to me that this reads as advertising and needs a dose of ; it can then perhaps be recreated in a more neutral manner
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: and cleanup for NPOV. The article is full of promotional fluff, but the sources are there to satisfy  and specifically  - in fact, for a South Asian business (where traditionally it's hard to find truly independent sources for the reasons mentioned by DGG above), this is actually quite a wide spread of online references attesting to this company's market-leader status in its home country
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:AUD)

Comment: I think this passes  and . I just had a look at http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/keyword/tally-solutions this and it seems they have been getting coverage over a sustained period of time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Meets . Source examples include, but are not limited to the Byline|bylined news articles and other sources listed below. See also: 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:NEXIST)

Comment: The articles listed here by {{user|Northamerica1000}} from ''Mint (newspaper)|Mint'', ''Business Standard'', and ''The Hindu'' demonstrate that Tally Solutions passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I've reviewed Tally Solutions and found the article to be neutrally written so this should not be deleted under  or 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:NOTADVERTISING)

Comment: I did not see an answer to my earlier question on who deleted this article when previous AfD's resulted in a keep. I have checked this now and found that it was speedy deleted last year. This was done against the guidelines for  which states: {{xt|If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below. }} The speedy delete was done under the criteria A7 and G11 and these are -not- listed as these "specific uncontroversial criteria". The conclusion is therefor that the article should have been undeleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:SPEEDY)