Deletion of ZoomInfo (2nd nomination)

Comment: Cunard, the problem is that you post 10, 15, 20 links to various references with selected quotes from each (selected, in that you often omit the pieces that show the information originates from an interview or connected source and this is deliberately deceptive), taking up pages and pages. Despite you having been told multiple times about this type of posting, you continue to do so. Not only that, but most of the references you post simply ignore the criteria for establishing notability contained in NCORP, especially the requirement for intellectually independence. Either you don't understand  or you are intentionally ignoring it. Either way, posting as you do is both off-putting and disruptive. For example, you posted https://www.upi.com/ZoomInfo-mines-deep-for-personal-data/39641133809317/ this reference previously and again just now. The article relies extensively on an interview from a company source. You've extracted one quote from David Card and I'll ask you simply, since that is the only intellectually independent part of the article you've identified, how exactly does this quote help to establish notability and just exactly what part of that quote meets  for example? Similarly, you've extracted a single quote from the CBS News, same thing applies. Similarly with the book references. The "Get Connected" reference is self-published from Entrepreneur Press and fails as a . The "Semantic Web for Dummies" is a listing among other company listings and I would accept this as a weak reference but not enough on its own to establish notability. The third book reference "Technocreep" is a mention in passing and fails 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:RS||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: per .  Sufficient sources over the years to support notability, and any remaining concerns about promotionalism in the text can be handled by the usual editing processes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: as I don't see  met here: ''A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of '''significant''' coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.'' (Emphasis mine.) The significance is what is lacking, IMO. I don't see a whole lot of (non-PR) content that goes much beyond "this is a company that exists
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: It appears that many of the Keep !voters above are unaware that the criteria for sources used for the purposes of establishing notability of companies/organizations is much stricter that sources used to establish the notability of other topics. One of the key parts of  is "Intellectual Independence
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND)

Comment: there are enough intellectually independent sources to pass  particularly the later book sources and the critical pieces are certainly independent and cannot be considered pr in the least, regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)