Deletion of SolidFire (2nd nomination)

Comment: this article is undoubtedly written in . We shouldn't delete an article because it was written as an advertising vehicle; after all, if the subject is notable, then Wikipedia should have an article for it. Just because it was created by an advertising editor does not make this less notable, and in fact, I haven't found any instances of advertising. Also, previous AfD was by no means conclusive of this form of the article. Even on cursory glance, this AfD is a lot more in depth than its first one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: SolidFire has received significant coverage in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources from those provided by Northamerica1000 so meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I oppose a merge because it would be undue weight to move all the material in SolidFire to NetApp and encyclopedic material would be lost if very little material were merged. I read the article and consider it largely to be neutrally written, so  is not applicable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADVERTISING)

Comment: There are enough sources in the article that clearly meet |necessary criteria and denote notability. Whether redirecting makes more sense from an information point of view is a different question
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per . Literally every single source I saw mentioned it as a part of NetApp. We don't create articles for every small subsidiary unless the subsidiary can show notability independent of the parent company. That is not happening here. Accordingly, I suggest a redirect with history preserved. If someone wants to add information, they can pull it out from the history
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE)