Deletion of Bounce Exchange

Comment: Satisfies  handily; I just expanded the article with more non-trivial coverage in independent sources. As for the tone concerns cited in the nomination, I (like Mortee) disagree with them - see above - , and in any case they would not have been a reason to delete the article entirely including the factual information that it provides. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I'm surprised by the description "advertorially toned". The article accuses the company of rather shady-sounding pop-up tactics in the main paragraph of the lead, sourced to https://www.racked.com/2015/9/3/9242045/passive-aggressive-pop-ups-no-thanks an article that discusses BounceX at length. IP users tried eight times to remove that in January, so someone out there doesn't think this is an ad at all. The rest of the text reads plainly. I find it off-putting in fact, though admittedly I'm not in their target market. On the RS side, there's that article, https://www.inc.com/inc5000/list/2016 this rating them the fastest growing software company in America (a fairly nonsensical stat but coverage https://www.builtinnyc.com/2016/08/17/9-nyc-tech-companies-among-250-fastest-growing-startups itself https://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2016/08/18/how-new-york-companies-fare-on-the-new-inc-5000.html commented https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/10-fastest-growing-private-companies-in-usa-589877/ on), and http://fortune.com/best-medium-workplaces-in-technology/bounce-exchange-3/ Fortune and https://www.computerworld.com/article/2936333/bestplaces2015/video-top-firms-for-training-retention-benefits-and-career-development.html Computerworld rating it a good workplace. I also wouldn't discount the interview for ''notability'' purposes any more than a non-interview article of the same depth. It's the same publication, itself independent of the subject, making the same choice to dedicate attention to them. That's what matters for notability, we just couldn't use the answer portions for ''verification'' (|of anything interesting). No vote for now but I'm curious on the neutrality question
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:ABOUTSELF)