Deletion of OpenText

Comment: Ping|Cmurphey80}} Ok, I'm really sorry that I rushed to conclusions based on your edit history without checking in depth. As far as notability goes, the guidelines require "multiple" qualifying sources. "Multiple" generally means more than one, and deletion discussions tend to agree that two qualifying sources are sufficient. In addition to the 2 qualifying sources in the article, it's easy to find more news stories by just searching for "OpenText" on Google, for example http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/opentext-s-120m-grant-hinges-on-creation-of-1-200-new-jobs-says-province-1.3092731 http://www.pcworld.com/article/2982491/opentext-pitches-big-data-service-the-first-in-a-planned-series-for-analytics.html http://www.cmswire.com/cms/information-management/opentext-targets-compliant-office-365-cloud-shift-otew2014-027154.php http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/07/29/opentext-survives-a-tough-quarter-as-shares-soar.aspx http://venturebeat.com/2015/01/05/opentext-snaps-up-document-collaboration-partner-igc/ &mdash; I believe all of these qualify for 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The article passes . If someone feels that the article looks like an advertisement, then he should delete the advertising content from the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:COMPANY)

Comment: meets  just fine with existing material, there appear to be many others available. Clean up is no reason for deletion. This also appears to be a bad faith nomination by a COI editor
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)