Deletion of Acanac

Comment: The sources listed above are not ''about'' Acanac, but simply namecheck its existence briefly within coverage of other things. We do not keep articles about companies just because media coverage of other things happens to namecheck the fact that this thing exists — we keep articles about companies only if and when they're ''substantively'' the ''subject'' of enough media coverage to satisfy . And it's also not Wikipedia's role to keep a poorly sourced article just because the subject is a small upstart competitor to more entrenched media conglomerates — we're an encyclopedia, not a free advertising venue. Being a small company is not a barrier to inclusion on Wikipedia, if the article can be sourced ''properly'' — but existing as a small company is not a Wikipedia ''freebie'', if blurbs and listicles are the best we can do for sourcing. And per , if there are other articles on Wikipedia whose claims of notability and evidence of sourceability are as weak as has been shown here, then that constitutes evidence that they should also be deleted rather than evidence that this should be kept
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)