Deletion of CTERA Networks (2nd nomination)

Comment: the article satisfies both  and . I do not see , , nor POV problems. I note that the use of a word like "cloud" is not a reason to delete an article. The unwillingness to verify/judge the list of sources provided in the article, article talk and above, is an additional sign that it includes enough  to satisfy requirements. The argument that it is not sure what the company does or makes or sells after reading the article, is clearly not true for the average reader as it even includes lists of products (hardware and software). Also, a speedy close (is that a delete?) in the past is no valid reason for delete today. The company can have grown and become notable since then, so the suggestion that a speedy close 2.5 years ago hold any value in favour of deletion today is not valid. There is simply not a #REASON for this article that I see
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:ADVERT||WP:COI||WP:NPOV||WP:RS||WP:DEL)

Comment: and '''Improve''' - the subject of this article appears to be covered by independent secondary sources establishing the |notability It was funny to read that http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/23/AR2010092307605.html Jon L. Jacobi from PC World reference published by the Washington Post  was used to support "non-notability" claim
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)