Deletion of ViewPoint 3D

Comment: I was neutral at first, but thanks to the independent sources added, it sounds like this subject deserves a chance. And although it's true that the tone is still rather promotional, it isn't ''blatantly'' promotional (imo), so a speedy wouldn't apply (a rewrite would, however&mdash;and remember, |AfD is not cleanup). '''Erpert
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP)

Comment: As a compromise, I'm happy for the article to be moved into draft space or the primary contributor's sandbox until such time (if any) that the company/product achieves notability per policy. At such time, submission via  would help overcome the COI issue. hth
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for creation (WP:AFC)

Comment: Actually, this should probably be Speedy Deleted per  due to its obviously promotional slant. There is no reason why it can't be rebuilt with good sources if they exist. Anyone could put it in their own sandbox if they wanted. But, even with a change in tone and direct links solely to the publisher's page removed, it still would not meet notability guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:G11)

Comment: per  - nothing more than an advert in an article's clothing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:ADMASQ)