Deletion of Dovico (company)

Comment: per . Applying for a patent does not make a company notable. About.com is not a reliable source of product reviews. KIRA is specific to New Brunswick. Mention in Daptiv case study is unsubstantial (and doesn't describe the company or identify which product it's about). Sidenko mention is unsubstantial. Guha paper is an undergraduate thesis and therefore self-published. I searched for other sources but didn't find any. It belongs in Wikipedia ''after'' there's substantial coverage in reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: advertising: ''a software company that provides multiple products to small and large companies that have need to track their employee time, expenses and effort for project management, project scheduling, costing, billing or productivity improvement. DOVICO is also a Microsoft Certified Partner.''  |One of many, many "project management" software businesses, each of which imagines that they and their products have the kind of |historical, technical, or cultural significance needed to rank an encyclopedia article.  Winning minor and local trade awards does not confer that kind of significance, either.  Thanks for the leads on similar articles, though
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL||WP:CORP)

Comment: the according to the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline|general notability guideline, a subject needs "''significant coverage in Wikipedia:reliable sources|reliable sources that are independent of the subject''" to be considered notable. The About.com source discusses the subject in detail. The paper by Sidenko also discusses the subject with more than just a passing mention (see section 5.7). Thus the article is notable per Wikipedia:Notability and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)