Deletion of Nextiva (4th nomination)

Comment: sources do not meet  and are mostly . $125M for a tech company is not remarkable, and is actually pretty low to assume notability in the absense of strong sources. Just a private company going about its business; Wikipedia is not a directory. '''Salt''' as well due to persistent recreation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:SPIP)

Comment: Agree there are not sufficient in-depth independent sources to meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: The company is on the Deloitte 500 list, a fact that clearly establishes the notability of Nextiva. Although some aspects of the article can certainly be rewritten, it should be kept on the project in light of passing 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: This one is associated with Tomas Gorny - a topic that I still feel also meets notability guidelines but that's a different story. As far as promotion, it can easily be removed from the Wikipedia page. There are references from articles such as regional press from Arizona, a mixture of publications on the national level, and the books mentioned above by editor Hyperblick. There are also reviews of its products from reliable sources which include http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/7914-best-online-fax-service-small-business.html this from Business News Daily and https://www.pcmag.com/review/345090/nextiva-vfax this from PC Mag (Note that BND recommends the service while PC Mag does not). If we don't want articles like this, we need to strengthen our guidelines on notability. As for now, I feel this meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: purely promotional article which does not pass , as per the above analyses. No sense re-hashing them. Is there something beyond "salting", since that happened last time and clearly didn't work
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The Chicago Tribune "article" was posted by an anonymous "http://web.archive.org/web/20160711153019/http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/community/chi-community-contributors-who-are-they-20130624-story.html Community Contributor".  It was not written by a Tribune writer, it did not receive editorial oversight, it is basically a blog post (that confusingly carries the imprimatur of The Chicago Tribune) - it does not qualify as a |reliable source just because it appears on the Tribune website
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IRS)

Comment: I do find the article |promotional, and it needs trimming but I also think it has reliable sources and fits within 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO||WP:GNG)

Comment: Personally I don't care how the other language Wikipedias define notability. This is the English language version. Applying our criteria we do not have two intellectually independent references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. There's certainly evidence that this company has a functioning marketing department though. Fails GNG and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: I have been in this discussion about this subject before. These sources http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/tech/2016/04/15/nextiva-growing-rapidly/82514464/ this and https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/techflash/2014/11/nextiva-named-fastest-growing-tech-firm-in-arizona.html this are definitely . Even though borderline this passes the  test. The article has been recreated twice via Drafts and it was approved by different AFC reviewers but one thing that stands out is it has been having the same AFD nominator 3 times even though mot consecutively. Referring to http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/tech/2016/04/15/nextiva-growing-rapidly/82514464/ link 1 and https://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-vanduzer/nextcon-brings-the-silico_b_13074830.html link 2.  states; ''An independent interviewer represents the __world at large__ giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability.'' and it also states; ''The material provided by the interviewee may be primary, if the interviewee is speaking about his own life, or may be secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported.'' While I think it is in order to write off what other language encyclopedia consider as matter of policy on inclusion of subjects yet all of them are working to consolidate information about notable subjects in the quest to create the sum of all human knowledge. Not unless ''sum of all human knowledge'' is supreme over all in some language(s). If anything they span off from English Wikipedia and the policies their might be better in a bid to improve coverage as DGG stated above. I have also seen an editor trash the revenue per year because this is a tech company – granted that might be the case but some companies say UBER (Taxi) had an article here when it could only raise USD 1.25M of seed capital while it was more of a unicorn and not really having any revenues. Not really citing  but just like law precedence is equally important when building solid foundations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:INTERVIEW||WP:OTHER)