Deletion of Appian Corporation

Comment: it might be worth having a look at some other AfDs (especially on companies) to see how to make a good justification, of which one aspect is: brevity isn't necessary, but essays are counter-productive at convincing others, additionally you don't need both "big" tags ''and'' bolding. More importantly, challenges on allow clean-up etc are generally not suited to notability nominations, where clean-up shouldn't actually matter, so long as the Nom (and any !voting editor) do their own  checks to find sources outside the article - if clean-up in an aspect is impossible then it shouldn't be enabled. Recent is usually intended to apply on 1/2 hours scale, more relevantly, it doesn't really apply to AfC-authorised drafts, since it has already had time
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: ping|Jonkatora}} Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, there are fourteen reasons for putting an article up at AfD, not just four. In my experience, the most common is #8, lack of notability, which is what is alleged here. The relevant guideline here is , one of the most difficult to parse. I am in agreement with {{u|DGG}} and {{u|Nosebagbear}} in that I think it squeaks through. Tech companies are notorious for appearing in the night like mushrooms and disappearing after a short time, but articles may still benefit the reader
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: This was a somewhat marginal case (hence the talk post). I believe notability is best demonstrated by these three summaries: https://www.wired.com/2001/11/army-intranet-worlds-largest/ Wired talking about Army Portal; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/06/22/feature/forget-silicon-valley-the-dulles-tech-corridor-is-cultivating-companies-that-break-the-mold WashingtonPost on alternative to Silicon Valley, using Appian as an example; https://www.pcmag.com/article/344371/build-an-app-in-15-minutes-with-zero-coding-using-appian-qui PCMag on what they do (Little less trustworthy via some Appian involvement). Two of these sources are product-based articles but they cover the parent company in good detail, so I don't believe inherited applies. The sources were narrowed to satisfy NCORP. Regarding the use of  I'd first say that it doesn't apply, since it's designed to apply to things where there are countless equivalents - more importantly it is an essay on notability and  is more relevant, where other companies existing or not existing is irrelevant to Appian being notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)