Deletion of PSSC Labs

Comment: Fails  for lack of significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. The references listed are mostly not Reliable Sources. Hoover information is self-supplied and does not contribute to notability IMO. A Seattle Times article gives the company one sentence. There is an article at genomeweb but I don't know if that qualifies as a Reliable Source. Some of their individual supercomputer installations have gotten coverage, and there is some trade-magazine coverage, but I don't find this to add up to notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: conditional upon some verification of the sources. The most reliable seeming sources are the books, and I don't have those books - can anyone verify that their servers are mentioned? The article doesn't read as particularly promotional to me and at a glance it certainly seems like it passes  to me. Also, whether or not the person who wrote the article was paid is irrelevant. Even if it's got promotional content if it's notable just cut it down to a stub and let someone expand it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUD)

Comment: Passes  per Hoovers. The who, why, how and when of the article's creation is utterly, totally and absolutely beside the point if it passes ,  and  which this article appears to do.  Whoever created it could have done a better job with the refs given that there are other readily available refs which are not broken or depend on the internet archives, etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUD||WP:GNG||WP:V||WP:NPOV)