Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tier-3

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep - withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) - Mr X 20:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

=[[Tier-3]]=

:{{la|Tier-3}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tier-3 Stats])

:({{Find sources|Tier-3}})

Inadequately sourced article about a company. I am unable to find independent sources that discuss the subject in any depth. Seems to fail WP:ORGDEPTH notability guidelines. - Mr X 20:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

:*Withdrawn - based on new sources. - Mr X 20:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 20:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 20:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

KEEP - (Interest declared as the author) - Several press links/stories, references, reviews etc. have been added also independent analyst coverage/research from Bloor Research and Gartner (the magic quadrant 2011 and 2012) Only1weasel (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC) only1weasel

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.