Deletion of 99designs (2nd nomination)

Comment: because the links in the article, in comments above, and in previous discussions linked above, establish by verifiable evidence that there is significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. It thus meets ,  and otability_(organizations_and_companies)#Alternate_criteria_for_specific_types_of_organization|the alternate critera
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGCRIT||WP:GNG||WP:N)

Comment: Agree with nom. Fails sourcing for  even the stuff that looks like in depth independent coverage like Pando is actually not independent. It reports that the company received $35 million from Accel partners and when you look at the about page https://pando.com/about/ you discover that Accel is the 2nd biggest stake holders in Pando. And I think we all know what value Forbes and techcrunch have as RS for notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG)

Comment: Seems to me quite sufficient  to satisfy GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST)

Comment: There is certainly significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources (eg The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian Financial Review, and the Springer and Routledge publications). Meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ORGCRIT)

Comment: does not meet ; sourcing is in passing, routine notices, and / or . The first AfD took place in 2014, while NCORP has been significantly tightened since then. The page does not meet it at this time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:SPIP)

Comment: responding to ping.  There's sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability.  The Forbes piece is a staff written article, not a guest "contributor" which I think is what causes concern elsewhere. The Sydney Herald and Fast Company pieces are also good.  I read and use Techcrunch a lot - it's quite reliable. Based on existing sourcing, the company meets . And now that the fluff has been culled, it read a lot better
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I have just read the talk page and pinging editors that worked on getting the draft accepted looks very much like  to me. Knowing full well they were involved in the article finding itself in mainspace seems a little bit like vote stacking because this nomination could be seen as a criticism of their judgement (which it actually isn't as a lot of accepted AFC get deleted and this is notmal) and I don't see the justification for it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASSING)