Deletion of EDition

Comment: does not appear to meet .  No independent sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: no evidence of independent sources - the 'references' in the article are all examples on EDition's website of what the site/service offers.  Admittedly not the easiest name in the world to google for, but I can't find anything approaching 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Apologies if you feel I'm playing judge and jury, I wasn't intending to. I haven't accused you of conspiracy, but have voiced my suspicion that your account may be related to those above as none of you have edited much, if at all, outside this article and its deletion discussion, which I see as being unusual activity. I may be wrong. Either way, it would be great if you '''Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goranmp|made a statement''' explaining whether or not these accounts are linked. I'm not saying that you knowingly tried to undermine Wikipedia, and I totally understand if you aren't clear with our policies - there are lots of them! Anyhow which way, please |assume good faith in my edits - I'm only trying to make sure Wikipedia runs smoothly. If you have any more queries about such matters outside of this deletion discussion, please feel free to
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: Fails the |general notability guideline. There is a lack of coverage in reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The issue is that Wikipedia has |certain standards for determining notability.  The basic one is that a subject should have '''significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject'''.  Searching on Edition's website will not provide sources independent of the subject.  Blogs are not regarded as being reliable, as anyone can write one with any information (see ). And the FIPP site, whilst confirming EDition does exist and exhibits at trade fairs, falls far short of offering significant coverage, and would not be considered independent as presumably EDition paid for a spot at the congress.  The sort of things we are looking for is a newspaper or trade magazine articles.  Something that says independent sources think that EDition is important enough to write about.  Please also note that Wikipedia also has a policy that you should be  to other editors, which I suggest you are in danger of breaching
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:SPS||WP:CIVIL)