Deletion of Junction Solutions

Comment: This is a valid and notable company. Per the  the concept of notability is ''distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity".''  Also, let's all please adhere to the  Guidelines: ''The prime values of the talk page are communication, '''''courtesy''''', and consideration.''  Instead of criticizing, perhaps time would be better spent editing said page.  And
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP: N||WP: TALK)

Comment: As an editor, it is my understainding that you would provide a critical eye and send feedback to this article and not simply place AfD tags on articles that you see fit.  I implore you to make edits to the Junction Solutions page as I again refer to  the concept of notability is ''distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity".''  I was able to post the current content on the Junction Solutions page from my own research, and isn't {{tl|underconstruction}} a tool to signify that the article is just that, a work in progress?  As a new user to Wikipedia, I was unaware that a talk page for discussion existed, and did not monitor the page on a frequent basis as you seem to have the time for.  Deleting the warning tags was all I could see to do.  I appreciate the deletion process explanation, as it is clearer to me now.  Lastly, how, may I ask, is describing a company's background and what it does '''promotional material
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP: N)

Comment: As I've said before, this article has all the signs of a promotional article, if not outright spam. The article was created by an |editor with no other edits aside from this article who ignored and deleted all warnings and talk-page comments. When the AfD was posted, the author attempted to turn the tables and make it look like I was to blame, a classic case of avoiding or evading the real issue. The company is not notable, no different from dozens if not hundreds of other similar vetical-market software development companies. Nothing about this company makes it stand out from others, and only two of the sources cited can be verified by a link
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: As a longtime editor here, I am very well acquainted with . I left a message quite some time ago on the Talk:Junction Solutions your talk page, informing you of the issues that needed to be resolved. You did not respond in any fashion, ask any questions, or engage in any dialogue. You merely removed any warning tags that were applied without comment, left the {{tl|underconstruction}} tags in place for a long preiod of time, and persisted in adding promotional material about the company. As for Kineticsware, Inc., I'll repeat our oft-cited policy: |The fact that other similar articles exist is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Each subject must stand or fall on its own merits, not by attempting to link notability to a similar subject. It often means that we simply haven't gotten around to flagging the other article(s) for deletion. And now that you've brought this other company to my attention, guess what I'm about to do to it? Yep, time for another AfD. (By the way, this is not a ''speedy'' deletion - that's a separate procedure altogether. This is a regular deltion discussion, which is debated for five days, and is anything but speedy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: I think the company is notable enough. But the article needs a cleanup of the obvious promotional material and language. None of those external links should be used in the body of an article either, per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:External links (WP:EL)