The result was no consensus. There is no consensus asbout whether the coverage is sufficiently in-depth, so the article is kept by default. Sandstein 06:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article was already deleted once (with speedy close) as a "Wikivertisement for non-notable company that fails to even assert notability". The article is still an WP:ADVERT that fails to assert WP:NOTABILITY, but it also has WP:NPOV and potentially WP:COI problems — it's essentially a WP:PUFF piece and product catalog that would require a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. Hence I propose we:
** (Tech Magazine) CTERA Adds Bare Metal and Server Backup to Hybrid Cloud: ESG
Comment I initially closed this as delete, but it's been suggested that I re-list it with some notes to the participants. This is an unusual step, but I'm going to do it, there's no harm in more talking.
I initially closed this as delete, and when queried I made some notes at User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#Scratch that, upon reconsideration, left me certain I had closed correctly. To date, the arguments presented for deletion are more closely aligned with the policies and guidelines that they have referenced. I won't reclose this now that I've contributed, but I'd suggest that in order to avoid deletion by the next admin, they need to adress the issue of the sources provided are significant coverage. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]