Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exinda Networks
I re-created this article a month or so ago after it had been deleted because the original article had been deleted because it was written like an advertisement. I made a focused effort to write the article from a neutral standpoint, and I strongly disagree that Exinda fails Wikipedia's notability criterion.  asserts that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Exinda has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such as NetworkWorld (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/120106-wan-appliance-underdog-exinda-pushes.html WAN appliance underdog Exinda pushes open standard, http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/accel/2007/0416netop1.html Making Headway into the U.S., and http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/accel/2006/1106netop1.html Exinda speeds up branch office appliance), Byte and Switch (http://www.byteandswitch.com/document.asp?doc_id=118326 Honda NZ Re-Optimizes WAN), Techworld (http://www.techworld.com/networking/news/index.cfm?newsid=8252 Exinda offers cheap WAN accelerator), and eWeek (http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Infrastructure/Exinda-Puts-New-Spin-on-Managing-WAN-Optimization/ Exinda Puts New Spin on Managing WAN Optimization and http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Infrastructure/Appliance-Lets-Network-Managers-Control-Recreational-Traffic/ Appliance Lets Network Managers Control Recreational Traffic). The fact that two press releases are referenced in the article does not corroborate or give any evidence to the claim that Exinda is not notable, especially when you consider that there are '''full-length articles about Exinda in multiple, reliable, secondary independent sources''' that are also cited
— User:Vpdjuric, 17:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOTABILITY (Wikipedia:Notability)