Deletion of Instana

Comment: one sources is not enough to meet . TechCruch & SD Times are too indiscriminate to meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: There's also a bunch of other coverage in German media. Do  people. https://www.solinger-tageblatt.de/solingen/ohligser-firma-instana-erhaelt-millionen-euro-10276581.html 1 http://gruender.wiwo.de/instana-30-millionen-us-dollar-fuer-software-start-up/ 2 https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/gruenderszene/article182033278/Start-up-Instana-Mit-30-Millionen-Dollar-schmeisst-man-keine-Party.html 3
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: The https://sdtimes.com/apm/a-guide-to-apm-tools/ SD Times and https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/26/instana-raises-30m-for-its-application-performance-monitoring-service/ Techcrunch articles appear to just get it over the line for . https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/mittelstand/start-up-instana-das-silicon-valley-entdeckt-solingen/20711020.html?ticket=ST-2409089-3Jcj2mKULexb9QWKdRxl-ap1 There's also an article in Handelsblatt, which is most definitely an RS, albeit German-language. I've got to be honest and say that this kind of AFD raises doubts about the draft process in my mind, since I often see articles nominated for AFD where AFC was skipped where the nomination amounts to "The article creator didn't do what I told them to do, now please delete this for me". It makes me think the process is not being treated as a collaborative one, but instead as a teacher/student one. However, I've never put an article through the draft process so maybe I'm just seeing one side of it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as per the analysis of {{u|AllyD}}, fails  and GNG
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: I appreciate that, despite attempts to codify  standards, judgment still needs to be made of identified sources. I have looked further at those proposed, to evaluate whether I stand by my original nomination. The SD Times text is copied from https://www.instana.com/press-releases/instana-integration-helps-accelerate-application-delivery-with-splunk/ company PR. The Techcrunch item is a light paraphrase of https://www.prweb.com/releases/instana_secures_30_million_series_c_investment_led_by_meritech_to_extend_automated_monitoring/prweb15787804.htm this PR with the same funding partner quotation. The Wirtschafts Woche item is the same PR funding announcement. The Solinger Tageblatt item appears to be similar, although it is paywalled local coverage. For me, these have to be set aside as falling under the ''"routine coverage … of a capital transaction"'' part of our criteria. However, there are the more substantial Gründerszene/Welt and Handelsblatt items.  Gründerszene followed https://www.gruenderszene.de/technologie/instana-series-c their coverage of the same funding announcement with their https://www.gruenderszene.de/technologie/software-startup-instana more detailed article/interview shortly afterwards.  Both this and the earlier Handelsblatt  article provide more detail but, for me, they remain propositional descriptions about where a start-up company sees its potential market position rather than critical evaluation, and insufficient to demonstrate that the firm has yet achieved lasting encyclopaedic notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (:WP:NCORP)