Deletion of Capillary Technologies

Comment: nbsp; Major reliable sources think their audiences need information about this topic, such as Bloomberg and Gartner, and we |follow the sources.&nbsp; The article is fine, as it has useful things to say that serve as a reference point for the topic, interconnecting that information into the world, written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Considering that this is a Singaporean company, I find it extremely suspicious that it has not received significant coverage in the Straits Times (which is pretty much the only broadsheet newspaper here). That led me to look at the sources. Most of them are from Economic Times/Indiatimes which as we have seen here have often published redressed press releases. In addition to that, many of the sources are often routine news of merger/aquisition/product launch. There is not one good article which focuses on the company and explains why it is significant or what impact it has made. The sources are not good enough for  and . Add to that the promo pressure - the article is swamped by SPAs and so is this AFD (and I suspect undisclosed paid editing going on). There is absolutely no need to waste volunteer time on stuff like this - this is pretty much against 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CORPIND||WP:NOTPROMO)

Comment: appears to be  & per nom
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM)

Comment: The sources and awards are enough to satisfy  and . The arguments for deletion are not compelling. If it had a POV problem in the past or even if it still has one now, that is not a reason for deletion. That is a reason for fixing the article.  —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CORPIND)

Comment: nbsp; Wikipedia is not a , and to the extent that arguments to remove all companies from Wikipedia are relevant, why are they not stated as IAR?&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BATTLEGROUND)