Deletion of EXo Platform

Comment: The only independent, significant source appears to be the ''PCMag UK'' found by {{u|Elahrairah}}.  Other articles are in PR wires although the sites themselves are sort of stealthy about it. For example, http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/3644493 this "Digital Journal" article is actually a press release, http://www.theserverside.com/news/1364587/Introducing-the-eXo-Platform the article in "The Server Side" claims it is independent but it is https://www.techtarget.com/ owned by a B2B a marketing network,  the http://www.cmswire.com/cms/social-business/a-cloud-based-intranet-courtesy-of-exo-023418.php CMSWire article is similarly https://www.simplermedia.com/ not truly an independent journalistic organization. These marketing platforms exist specifically to give the impression of media coverage to marketing clients.  They are not evidence of complying with either  or applicable SNG's (i.e.,  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NSOFT||WP:NCORP)

Comment: Not seeing the sigcov needed to establish . Sources like www.theserverside.com seem to be directly tied to the team that runs EXo, with the articles cited using language like "''After we had developed a Learning Management System (LMS), we decided to provide a custom web site as the basis for a Learning Content Management System (LCMS)''", and therefore does not pass Wikipedia's criteria for independent sourcing. The same goes for the www.infoq.com sources. The FCW article is more significant, but only briefly makes mention of EXo Platform https://fcw.com/articles/2005/03/29/military-shares-openly.aspx. In short, EXo Platform definitely exists but its existence has not resulted in the in-depth, independent third party sources needed to establish encyclopedic notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSOFT)